Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

NEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School Leavers

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of employment prospects for those leaving school this summer.

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the estimated figures of school leavers who will be available for employment at the end of the current school year.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on youth unemployment.

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase employment and training opportunities for school leavers.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the report, prepared by the Manpower Services Commission, on measures to combat unemployment, particularly of young people.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): It is estimated that 634,000 Easter and summer-term leavers will be seeking employment this year compared with about 616,000 in 1976. It would appear that the Easter leavers have fared better than was generally anticipated. Of an expected 69,000 leavers, a little over one quarter—about 19,000—registered as unemployed. Of these, between 6,000 and 7,000 entered employment or training within four weeks. This indicates that about 80 per cent. of the Easter leavers are now in employment or training.
However, it is too early to try to make a prediction about the employment prospects of the summer school leavers. Their placing is normally spread over a period of several months. The Government are at present considering the Manpower Services Commission's report "Young People and Work", and a statement to the House about this will be made by my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Renton: Is not that almost exactly the same answer as the Secretary of State gave to the House on 3rd May? Is it not time that he ceased considering the Manpower Services Commission's report and brought it before the House so that we can debate it? Will the Minister say whether he expects the number of unemployed school leavers to top the 150,000 figure during the course of the summer?

Mr. Walker: It would be foolish of me to try to make such predictions. As for the report, it is less than a month since it was published and the House had a full debate about it a week after its publication.

Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend understand that while many of us will give our full support to the early implementation of many of the recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission's report, we are nevertheless disturbed at the possibility that education beyond the age of 16 will be reserved for the better-off and the more able while


training alone will be reserved for those who are less able and less well off?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that that point of view will not be lost on my right hon. Friend and on the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We are receiving views on the report but—if I may disagree with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend—it is important that we should recognise that a large number of those who are finding difficulty in securing employment, and who are aged between 16 and 18, are the less able who need special assistance by way of training. Their needs will not be neglected.

Mr. Silvester: What steps do the Government now propose for continuing the training of those who are likely to be unemployed in the skills for which the need will be most felt when the economy turns upward again?

Mr. Walker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that a substantial part of the effort that has been put into the special measures has been aimed at that point. That is absolutely right. We must have skilled manpower in training now because it will be needed when the economy expands. There are acute shortages of skilled manpower in some areas, and there will be more if we do not take such steps.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation of youth unemployment is most serious and that the seriousness will deepen later this year and remain into the 1980s? In view of the fact that the future of many of the schemes must be determined by the end of the month, will the Government respond to the Holland Report before the end of the month in order to allay the anxiety that is in the minds of those who are responsible for the present schemes?

Mr. Walker: The whole House shares my hon. Friend's concern about the high and serious level of unemployment among young people and the difficulties that face us during the immediate future. However, my hon. Friend is not right in the assumption that some of the schemes expire at the end of the month. Only the job release scheme will expire, and the remainder will continue until the end of Angust. We shall try to give a firm policy response to the Holland Report by the end of the

month, and we hope that we shall be in a position to do so by then.

Mr. Forman: In view of the importance of training and retraining in dealing with our structural unemployment problems and the special contribution that can be made by TOPS centres such as the one at Waddon in my constituency, may we have an assurance that the Government will do more to expand TOPS schemes to help to cope with this difficult problem?

Mr. Walker: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and point out the dramatic expansion of TOPS schemes that has already taken place. In 1974 TOPS training was given to about 40,000 people. By 1975 the figure had increased to 60,000. In the past year it was 90,000, and the target figure for next year and subsequently is about 100,000.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a terrifying despair among school leavers on Merseyside and that unless action is taken quickly this will not be dissipated? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to lean on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reflate the economy and on the Secretary of State for Industry to bring more work to Merseyside to deal with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described two months ago as a terrifying and urgent problem?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is not exaggerating the seriousness of the problem on Merseyside. I can give him the assurance that the Government are keenly aware of it and are desperately anxious to do what we can to help. In replying to our debate before the recess, I stressed the importance of our economy and all Western economies moving as quickly as possible out of recession into a period of fast growth.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view expressed at the weekend by the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission that unemployment among young people will get far worse? What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Walker: The Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission was reflecting what is already contained in the Holland Report, whose proposals were a


response to this situation. We are trying to reach a conclusion on the report and to give a speedy response to the House. I hope that we shall be able to do so by the end of the month.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the urgency that is felt about this matter in all quarters of the House, and, if so, will he be more forthcoming about the Government's intentions? Is he aware that saying that he will make a statement as soon as possible when this may be after the end of the month is not good enough and that the House would welcome an assurance that we shall get a statement responding positively to the Holland Report no later than the end of next week?

Mr. Walker: We owe it to the various outside interests to give them an opportunity of expressing their views on the Holland Report and for those views to be taken fully into account before the Government reach a firm conclusion. I can assure those who have expressed views that they will be taken seriously, as will the views expressed in our recent debate, and we shall respond as quickly as possible. I say for the third time that I hope that we shall be able to make a statement by the end of the month.

Mrs. Bain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland, which has 9·3 per cent. of the British working population, has 19·9 per cent. of the unemployment in the under-18 age group? Is he aware that much of this is a direct result of the Government's policy of cutting back public expenditure? Will he, therefore, use all his influence with the Cabinet to ensure that adequate funds are channelled into organisations such as the Scottish Development Agency so that permanent jobs may be created in our communities and not just temporary jobs, the provision of which merely postpones the evil day?

Mr. Walker: I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady's arithmetic, but I understand her point about the seriousness of youth unemployment in Scotland as much as anywhere else. The SDA is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and not of my Department. I have to say to the hon. Lady that it does not help young unemployed people for her to make political points attributing responsibility to the Government. It was recognised in

our debate that most industrialised countries face the same problem, and in some of them it is even worse.

Motor Industry

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the effect on employment in the British car industry if the new Mini project for British Leyland were not proceeded with.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry told the House on 26th May that the Government had authorised the National Enterprise Board to allow a resumption of work on the programme, which it has now done.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that this was a wise decision by the Government and that it is time that millionaire Press proprietors and unscrupulous and inefficient editors got off the backs of the Leyland management and workers and allowed them to get on with their job of making British Leyland viable?

Mr. Grant: There is nothing in my hon. Friend's remarks with which I disagree. It was certainly a wise decision by the NEB and the Government to endorse the new programme.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what the latest unemployment figures are; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): At 12th May, 1,285,716 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The seasonally adjusted figure is 1,262,000. The fall in unemployment and the increased vacancies between April and May are encouraging, particularly taking account of the reduction in unemployment in the two previous months, though future prospects are still uncertain.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that I do not detect a blasé attitude developing on the Treasury Bench about unemployment and the prospect of even higher unemployment later in the year with the summer school leavers. Can my right


hon. Friend confirm that it is now costing about £4,000 million, taking into account all the benefits, including earnings-related benefits, redundancy payments, loss of tax revenue and tax relief in certain circumstances, to finance this mountain of misery? This is the era of the great debate about simplifying children's education, so can my right hon. Friend explain why, when we have 800 million bricks on the ground, 250,000 construction workers on the dole and thousands of people wanting roofs over their heads, his Department and the Treasury cannot match up these three simple facts and get the problem solved straight away?

Mr. Booth: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of any Minister in my Department or on the Treasury Bench generally being blasé about the level of unemployment. The recent improvements are welcome, but they are small in relation to the total size of the problem. There are a number of ways of estimating the cost of unemployment, and it is far too high in terms of human misery and loss of potential as well as in financial terms. I am working with other Ministers in interdepartmental considerations between my Department, the Departments of Industry and the Environment and the Treasury on ways of dealing with precisely those major points to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that unemployment is well over 1 million, but does he recall that in the Common Market referendum campaign two years ago we were told that if we did not stay in the EEC unemployment would rise to 1 million? Does he think that unemployment is higher or lower than it would have been if we had not remained in the Common Market?

Mr. Booth: I recall many of the things that we were told would happen if we did not stay in the Common Market, and many of them have happened since our entry. How far they are attributable to our membership of the Common Market and how far to the world slump is a matter of speculation, but there is no evidence to show that membership of the Common Market has protected countries from the effects of the slump. Many Common Market countries, including our-

selves, are suffering seriously from those effects.

Mr. Heffer: In his interdepartmental discussions, has my right hon. Friend given serious consideration to the Ryder Report relating to Plessey on Merseyside and elsewhere? Is he aware that 1,400 more workers are likely to join the unemployment queues in Liverpool because of the failure to come up with the alternative proposals that the Ryder Report may contain? What are the Government doing about this matter, which is very important to Merseyside?

Mr. Booth: The report to which my hon. Friend refers has only just come into Ministers' hands. I was involved with Ministers in the Department of Industry in exploring the possibilities of creating alternative work or bringing additional work to plants affected by changes in the Post Office ordering programme. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will shortly be in a position to indicate the outcome of the two reports that were put in hand as a result of these discussions.

Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment record of the Government is disgracefully complacent? Is he further aware that remarks such as he has made this afternoon about the Common Market do nothing to create confidence in British industry? Is he not aware that lack of confidence in British industry and lack of incentive to work and get on is at the root of many of our problems today?

Mr. Booth: All that I said about the Common Market was that there is no evidence that membership in itself has protected member States from the slump. I do not see how that could undermine confidence in British industry. I hope that it might act as a spur to industry to make efforts to improve our productivity and performance in the future as a member of the Community. There is no question of any complacency on the part of the Government. In fact, through my Department and the Department of Industry we have mounted more measures to deal with the effects of the slump than ever before in the history of this country.

Mr. Prior: Will the Secretary of State state clearly that he fully supports


Britain's entry into the Community and that he thinks it right for Britain to stay in?

Mr. Booth: All I shall say is that I fully accepted the decision of the British people in the referendum.

Job Creation

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the job creation programme; how much money has been allocated to it so far; and to what extent it has helped reduce unemployment amongst young people in urban areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that a total of £130 million has been allocated to the job creation programme, which is due to end on 31st March 1978. Up to 19th May 1977, grants totalling £114 million had been allocated to 8,201 projects creating 80,038 jobs. The majority of these are in urban areas. About 45 per cent. of all jobs created are filled by 16 to 18-year-olds and about 75 per cent. by those in the age group 16 to 24.

Mr. Bottomley: In addition to or in substitution for the costly and temporary job creation programme, will the Minister accept the Opposition's imaginative idea of getting young people involved in neighbourhood and community work? Does he agree that such a scheme would cost less and involve more people?

Mr. Golding: The Government are at present considering proposals that have come from the Holland Committee's report which are endorsed by the Manpower Services Commission and have received support from the CBI, the TUC, the education services and local authorities.

Mr. Park: What will follow when the job creation project finishes? What will happen after that?

Mr. Golding: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait a little while for us to announce our decision about that. We are expecting shortly to make a statement on the Government's view of the Manpower Services Commission's proposals.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, although it is not regarded as a solution or a substitute for permanent employment, the job creation programme has been welcomed in my community as a contribution towards reducing unemployment? It also provides some amenities and facilities that have been missing for a long time. What will happen after the date when the schemes are due to end in constituencies such as mine, which consistently has had the highest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Golding: The right hon. Member must be patient for a few weeks. The Government will announce their decision as soon as possible. I, too, have been enthusiastic about the success of the job creation programme. I have supported the work that has been done among young people.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure to date on the job creation scheme; and how many jobs have been created; and, of these, what percentage have been translated into permanent employment.

Mr. Golding: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that up to 19th May grants totalling £114 million had been allocated to 8,201 projects approved under the job creation programme, creating 80,038 jobs. No JCP jobs have been translated into permanent employment. The programme is intended to provide temporary jobs, and employment on JCP projects is subject to a maximum of 52 weeks, with the exception, in some cases, of project supervisors. A small number of workshop enterprises which may lead to permanent employment opportunities are also currently being funded by JCP.

Mr. MacGregor: As unemployment among young people is not likely to be a temporary problem, is not that one of the real weaknesses of the job creation programme? Would it not be better to concentrate rather more of the vast sums involved on programmes which offer long-term training and work experience, concentrating more effort on removing from firms, especially small businesses, some of the obstacles which are now discouraging them from taking on new employees?

Mr. Golding: All these matters are under consideration by the Government in the light of their consideration of the proposals contained in the Holland Report.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the long term technological advance means that there will be no overall increase in the number of jobs and that, in fact, there will be a reduction as the years go by? Does he accept that the only solution is to reduce the retirement age?

Mr. Golding: I believe that technical innovation can increase the number of jobs available. That is certainly so in the service sector. That will enable us to pay for them as well as to diminish them.

Mr. Prior: Why do the Government take so long to make up their minds? The problem has been with us for three years and yet the Government have not put forward any positive long-term scheme to deal with the problem, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). Why do not the Government get on with the job instead of talking about it?

Mr. Golding: Because the Government believe that it is important that we discuss the recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission with as many people as possible. We believe that it is important to carry the CBI and the TUC with us in any proposals in respect of youth unemployment.

Employment Transfer Scheme

Mr. Hodgson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken advantage of the employment transfer scheme to find employment.

Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that from the time the employment transfer scheme was introduced on 5th April 1972, up to 31st March 1977, 80,687 people were assisted under the scheme to take up employment. This figure does not include transfers which took place during the quarter ended 31st December 1976, for which statistics are not available.

Mr. Hodgson: What proportion of those originally accepted under the employment transfer scheme were unable to

take up their new employment because they could not make a council house transfer from one area to another? What will the Minister do to remedy that defect in the scheme?

Mr. Grant: I cannot give a precise statistical answer to that question. The Government are actively considering the question of mobility.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister confirm that the Government have not changed their policy of not moving people from areas of high unemployment to other areas to look for work as a permanent solution? Is he aware that this idea has been given credence particularly with the abolition of regional employment premium and yesterday caused considerable consternation at the meeting of Welsh district councils?

Mr. Grant: There has been no change in policy. The employment transfer scheme is being considered by the Employment Services Agency and the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend be slightly less complacent about the difficulties of those who take advantage of the sensible transfer scheme and then have to leave their families in areas of high unemployment while they try to find housing? May we have an assurance that he or the Secretary of State will initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, the development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns to encourage them to give priority in areas of long-term high unemployment to people who have been unemployed for perhaps 14 months or two years when they obtain local jobs?

Mr. Grant: I understand that a degree of preference is already given to people in new towns.

Mr. Corbett: No, it is not.

Mr. Grant: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of both my right hon. Friends.

Closed Shop

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the light of further dismissals of employees by British Railways for refusing to join a trade union, he is satisfied with the present law relating to the closed shop.

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that since the Adjournment debate on 7th April last the number of employees of British Rail who have been dismissed for refusing to join a union has increased from 31 to 40? Is it not clear that as the closed shop is extended the man without a union card will find it impossible to get a job? Does the Minister believe that it is right for the Government to accept a policy of neutrality when we are moving towards a closed shop Britain?

Mr. Walker: We believe that it is right that we should have a policy of neutrality and that the law should be neutral, as it is. The hon. Member is asking the Government to move away from neutrality against the closed shop. We prefer to remain neutral.

Mr. Hayhoe: Can the Minister explain how this neutrality differs from the neutrality of Pontius Pilate?

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Unemployment Trends

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he has made in his estimates of the trends of unemployment following the conference of Heads of Government in London during May.

Mr. Booth: None, Sir. As I frequently said, it is not possible to predict the trend of unemployment with any hope of accuracy in present circumstances. But I believe that the agreements resulting from the Downing Street conference should help towards achieving our common objective of reducing unemployment.

Mr. Tebbit: I thank the Minister for that answer, which seems to mean that he has no estimates and that no changes have been made but that he is rather optimistic. Will he say whether in his opinion the prospects for unemployment in the United Kingdom would be worse or better if Britain were to leave the Community?

Mr. Booth: First of all, it is not correct to deduce from my answer that we

have no estimates. We obviously have estimates of a number of important factors which have a bearing—the increase in the number of school leavers, the drop in the number of those retiring, and so on. However, the reason why I answered in the way in which I did is that one cannot foresee some of the changing factors which are ahead. I do not think that the question of coming out of the Common Market is one on which we can base employment estimates, because we are currently working within the framework of the Market to develop a number of employment policies, and my Department has been successful in a number of applications to the Social Fund for the funding of measures dealing with employment. Therefore, while we are working within the Market we shall use its agencies to the full in order to help the employment situation.

Mr. Ashley: Does my right hon. Friend know of the official estimate that the number of registered disabled people who are now unemployed is no less than 14 per cent.? Will he bear that point in mind when considering these factors, and will he consider a six-point plan to help them, which I shall be sending to him today?

Mr. Booth: I shall certainly consider any proposals put to me to help the very difficult situation of unemployed handicapped people. I am discussing with the MSC the way in which we can give special vocational aid to handicapped people, as I indicated to the House some weeks ago.

Health and Safety

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the implementation of legislation concerning health and safety at work.

Mr. John Grant: I am satisfied with the way in which the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are carrying out their responsibilities. But there are very few fields in the area of health and safety at work where standards cannot be improved. If my hon. Friend has any particular problem in mind I shall, of course, be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Whitehead: Responding to that, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at the representations that some of us have


received about the small but serious problem of alcoholism at the place of work? Is he aware that it is as serious a problem to be unfit to be in charge of a machine as to be unfit to be in charge of a motor car? Will he look at the evidence on this matter and see whether the legislation needs amending?

Mr. Grant: There was a National Council on Alcoholism working party, chaired by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), which reported earlier this year on alcoholism at work and recommended certain steps—more research by the Health and Safety Executive into the costs of alcoholism at work, and a code of practice to help employees with drink problems. The Health and Safety Commission's Medical Advisory Committee at its next meeting will be considering that and, in turn, the full Health and Safety Commission will be looking at the whole problem.

Mr. Greville Janner: Would not the health and safety legislation be more likely to be implemented if the courts started imposing on convicted offenders penalties severe enough to show the importance of the crime committed?

Mr. Grant: Yes, I think that there is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend has to say. I think that the average fine imposed last year on offenders was about £87. I doubt whether that really reflects the gravity of many of the offences concerned. My hon. and learned Friend will know that there is legislation at present before the House that will raise the fine from £400 to £1,000 on summary conviction for offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

Training

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the Government's special training measures have had on reducing unemployment.

Mr. Golding: At the latest count, 30,825 persons were in training places supported by industry and 4,448 were on the Training Services Agency special courses for young people. Most of these persons would have been unemployed without this support. Moreover, an increase in the number of skilled workers

makes it possible for employers to expand production in a way which gives employment to others.

Mr. Hunt: Does the Minister agree that training facilities, in particular on Merseyside and for young people, are still far from meeting the needs of the unemployed and will become more and more inadequate as the year progresses? Will he, therefore, look again at the decision not to site a skillcentre in Wirral?

Mr. Golding: There are over 1,850 places on Merseyside, but I recognise the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) and others for the necessity to have a skill centre in the Wirral. This is at present under consideration by the MSC.

Mr. Loyden: Has consideration been given to the submission made by the Liverpool Enterprise Development Unit, which has introduced innovations concerning unemployment which certainly merit consideration by the Department? Will my hon. Friend respond to the approaches made to him on this matter?

Mr. Golding: Together with my hon. Friend, I saw the delegation that made those representations and told them that I would respond when consideration had been given to the proposals of the Holland Report. That remains the case.

Temporary Employment Subsidy

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the temporary employment subsidy has had on reducing unemployment.

Mr. Golding: On 13th May some 199,000 jobs were covered by the TES scheme. This is thought to reduce the unemployed register by around 120,000.

Mr. Steen: Is it not also true that the TES will cost about £475 million, that it will have no long-term effect on the unemployment problem and that it severely distorts the monthly unemployment statistics by reducing the unemployment figures by 199,000?

Mr. Golding: The simple answer is "No". The hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong, once again. Up to 13th


May £234 million had been committed, and the estimate is in the range of £240 million.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend accept that the TES scheme has been a most valuable work in combating unemployment? Is his Department monitoring the take-up? Is he aware that in my county there are vast discrepancies, within the county itself, on take-up? Is he sure and confident that all factories and managements know of the opportunities afforded by this scheme?

Mr. Golding: The short answer is "Yes", because when redundancies are notified to us we bring to the attention of employers the availability of TES. It is often very much for trade unions concerned to discuss with management the relevance of TES to a particular redundancy.

Lost Days (Statistics)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment why statistics for days lost due to strikes exclude days lost from consequential lay-offs in firms other than those in which the strike takes place.

Mr. Booth: It would be impracticable to collect comprehensive information of this kind owing to the difficulty of identifying the ramifications of consequential lay-offs and the complex interrelationships between industries. Other countries experience the same difficulties, and this country's practice is in line with that followed by other members of OECD which also exclude consequential lay-offs from their statistics.

Mr. Jessel: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows when and where lay-offs take place, especially if they are on a big scale, as in the motor industry. As stoppages in one factory can lead to lay-offs in other factories, is it not misleading to give part only of the figures for days lost, and is it not utterly illogical for the Department to include in the figures workers who are not party to a dispute but who are laid off in a factory where a strike is taking place, but not those who are laid off in other factories?

Mr. Booth: No. Our figures are completely consistent. When we give the figures of days lost due to strikes, we include only people in the plants affected

by the strikes. We know of certain other lay-offs in the motor industry, but we do not collect those figures on the same basis. Often, in fact, we learn of them from newspaper reports. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to publish statistics on that basis. The average strike in this country lasts for only four and a half days. Therefore, it is relatively rare for there to be large consequential layoffs in factories other than those affected by the dispute.

Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be very misleading to include consequential figures, because many of these so-called consequential lay-offs are actually bosses' sympathy lay-offs, used to put pressure on the firm in which the strike is taking place?

Mr. Booth: That could also affect the figures, but I believe that we should keep the common basis with the OECD, because international comparisons happen to favour this country. Far too often a bad impression has been given and business confidence has been damaged, particularly by some Opposition Members talking as though strikes in this country were somehow peculiar and other countries did not have strikes of the same magnitude.

Young Persons

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to implement the commitment made at the recent Summit Conference in London to help the young unemployed.

Mr. Booth: It was agreed that there would be an exchange of experience and ideas on providing the young with job opportunities, and we are exploring how this can best be arranged.

Mr. Luce: As so many of the job creation schemes are of a temporary nature, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what action he is taking to provide more long-term employment by, for example, facilitating the provision of small-scale enterprises in inner city areas, where youth unemployment is so very high?

Mr. Booth: The industrial strategy is the greatest long-term scheme that any Government have backed to create jobs in this country. During the 12 months


from March 1976 to March 1977 there was an increase of 80,000 jobs in British manufacturing industry. That has had a considerable bearing on employment opportunities for young people. In the short run, of course, it is necessary to work with our European partners. In March the European Council asked the Commission to focus attention on measures to deal with specific unemployment problems, especially for young people, and to report on progress at the next meeting of the Council in June. By that stage I hope to be in a position to say what we are able to do to meet the major proposal of the Manpower Services Commission—namely, to increase by about 130,000 the number of training and work experience places for young people.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, helpful and well meaning as the job creation programme and other programmes to help the young unemployed may be, they are merely palliatives? Does he agree that the time has come for reflation of the economy, for further import controls and for consideration being given to a complete alternative strategy, the social contract and phase 3 going for a burton?

Mr. Booth: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the measures that we are considering with the MSC, or the existing job creation and work experience and training programmes, are palliatives. One of the features of the recession is that unemployment among younger people has risen very much faster than among adults. Any steps we can take that will improve their respective chances of obtaining jobs are of importance, even where we can bring about, as we must, a considerable improvement in the total number of jobs available. Unless we do that we could have a considerable reduction in unemployment and still have a large youth unemployment problem.

Mr. Prior: Is it not a fact, taking into account all the answers this afternoon, that the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman is equalled only by the complacency of Labour Back Benchers?

Mr. Booth: How the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile talk of complacency with announcements of measures planned to double what is the greatest

provision there has ever been for the problems of young people eludes me.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Ql. Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for 14th June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is engaged with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, I have been asked to reply.
Today my right hon. Friend will be presiding at both the morning and afternoon business sessions of the meeting. In addition, he was the guest of the Foreign Press Association at lunch.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister that many of us are pleased to hear of the efforts of the Commonwealth leaders to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa, a country where the exploitation of coloured workers is accompanied by police brutality and oppression? But would not this gesture have more meaning if the Prime Minister were to tackle the problems in our midst by holding a top-level inquiry into recent incidents at the Grunwick factory?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the whole House will be glad that an agreement has been reached between Commonwealth leaders over their sporting links with South Africa so as to allow next year's Commonwealth Games in Canada to take place. I am sure that that should be welcomed by everyone, both in the interests of the attack on racialism and in the interests of sport.
As for my hon. Friend's second question, I understand the concern that he has expressed and the concern expressed by many of my hon. Friends yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has called for an urgent report on the issue, and I think we must await that.

Mr. Watt: I recognise that the Prime Minister has a very full schedule, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he and his Government colleagues have already disappointed very many


members of the fishing industry who have been giving a demonstration today in the Pool of London and in other parts of the Thames in support of the demand for a 50-mile limit? Does he agree that the best way in which the Government can help our fishing industry is to come out of the Common Market, taking the whole of our 200 miles with us and using the outer 150 miles as a bargaining zone for trading off with the members of Europe?

Mr. Foot: As the hon. Gentleman and the House knows, many agreements were made before the Government came into office. What has happened recently is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been doing everything in his power, within the limitations to which I have referred, to defend the position of British fishing. My right hon. Friend will continue to do so.

Mr. Thorpe: If the Prime Minister is attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party today, does that count as a public or private engagement? If it is correct that he is attending the meeting, no doubt he will be referring to Europe and elections to the European Assembly. Are proposals contained in the Queen's Speech always to be taken as intended Government policy and collectively to be backed by Cabinet colleagues? Is it not right that had there been fundamental disagreement with the proposals when they were introduced we might have expected resignations from this Administration?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry, but I cannot anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make at the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this evening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel too disgruntled that he will not be there, but that is the situation. On the general question that he has raised, of course I understand the interest in this subject in all parts of the House. As I said before the recess, a communication will be made to the House about the matter this week, and, of course, that will be carried out.

Mr. Heffer: During the busy day that both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister are having, will they have time to look at the experiences of Norway, Sweden and Austria, none of which is in

the Common Market but all of which have a lower rate of unemployment than any Common Market country? Does my right hon. Friend think that the policy or policies which they are pursuing could be produced by this country outside the Common Market?

Mr. Foot: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Another feature of those three countries, of course, is that they have all had good Socialist Governments; that all assists. In many respects they have been following our example and we have been following theirs. That is a very good interchange. One thing that we must always be determined on in all those countries is to keep out any other incursion by Right-wing parties.

Mr. Pym: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), will he confirm that the use of the Government's "best endeavours" to pass a Bill providing for European elections includes the responsibility of each and every Minister to vote positively in favour of the Government's own legislation?

Mr. Foot: I remember very well that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of an Administration which arranged for a free vote, I think, on a question concerned with a major item of policy affecting the Common Market and that that announcement was not made until just prior to the debate itself. I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait in patience for the answer to his question at a later time.

TUC

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a meeting of TUC leaders this morning a great deal of bitterness was expressed at the fact that the wage restraint exercised by the trade unions over the last two years has not resulted either in a reduction of prices


or in price restraint, has not created one additional job and has not led to any additional investment in productive industry? Is he aware that there is, therefore, some reluctance to go forward into a third year of wage restraint of that sort? Can he now assure the House that it is the Government's intention to back up any future agreement concluded with the trade unions with some price control, guarantees for industrial investment and some guarantees that this Government intend to be job-creative?

Mr. Foot: On the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, if it had not been for the agreement reached between the Government and the trade unions over the past two years I have no doubt—I do not think that most of them would have much doubt—that both inflation and unemployment would be worse. Therefore, I believe that it was necessary to make those agreements, and I believe that it should be necessary also to make a further agreement. The form in which that agreement should be made—some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend are, of course, matters to be covered in those discussions—is still to be concluded, and discussions are proceeding on it at present.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: When the Prime Minister next meets the leaders of the TUC, can he discuss peaceful picketing and suggest to them that, except on Shrove Tuesday, it should be unnecessary to take eggs and flour on to a picket line?

Mr. Foot: It would be most improper and foolish for anyone from this Box and for most other people in the House to comment on the events of yesterday before we have had the report on the proceedings.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARIS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Paris in 1977.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Marten: Should the Prime Minister change his mind and, if he does go to Paris, should he consult the French President about direct elections, will he

tell the French President about the increasing anxiety of the British people, who do not wish to get further enmeshed in a Community where Euro-Communism is on the strong up-and-up? Second, will he make the point that no self-respecting British Member of Parliament could possibly vote for a direct elections Bill until we know that the salaries of Euro-MPs which are at present being mooted will be brought down to a level obtaining in this House, because we do not want accusations about a Euro slush fund in connection with those direct elections?

Mr. Foot: Despite the hon. Member's brave and popular proposals about the salaries to be fixed in this House, I am sure that all the matters he has raised will, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, be in order when we have the debate on the Bill which is to be introduced. No doubt the Prime Minister would prefer to hear the views of the House on the matter before he discusses it with the President of the French Republic.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard the matters of salaries and of Euro-Communism with a certain benign disregard but that the more important matter of lots of directly-elected MPs, with no constituencies, no real responsibilities, no real mandate, no real programme to carry out but having positions of enormous authority and suggestibility, is a major threat to the kind of democracy that we in this country have enjoyed?

Mr. Foot: Like the remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), all the comments of my hon. Friend will be in order when the debate takes place. That is the way in which we should proceed.

Mr. Tebbit: If the Prime Minister visits Paris and speaks to the French President or any other officials, will he be able to assure those officials that when he enunciates Government policy it is a policy which is supported by every member of his Cabinet at all times?

Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister will certainly be able to conduct all the conversations, not with "any French official"—I do not like the discourteous term of the hon. Gentleman—but with the President of the French Republic, with the full backing of the Government, and, I am sure, in the circumstances, when he


goes, with the full backing of the House of Commons as well.

Mr. Whitehead: To take a contrary view, may I ask whether, if the Prime Minister goes to Paris, he will congratulate President Giscard d'Estaing on pressing ahead with the Bill for direct elections with the assent of all the parties of the Left in France and the opposition only of the unreconstructed elements in the Gaullist Party?

Mr. Atkinson: That is not true.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parties of the Left have least to fear from popular sovereignty and democratic accountability?

Mr. Foot: It is true that there is a variety of views on this subject in all parties. All those views are properly expressed in the House of Commons when it comes to a verdict on the matter. One reason why we have had some difficulty on this matter is that when the European Communities Bill was passing through the House under a guillotine we did not have proper time to discuss these matters.

Mr. Pym: As this Government have given their solemn word to our European partners to use their best endeavours to get the Bill through, will the Lord President tell the House whether he himself will positively support the Government's own legislation?

Mr. Foot: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, what we are doing is following exactly the precedent in these matters which he set when he was dealing with these questions himself. The best and most natural way, and the best way according to precedent, for these matters to be dealt with is when we reach the debate itself.

DEVOLUTION (SCOTLAND AND WALES)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on devolution.
Following the decision of the House not to approve the proposed timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill, I announced that the Government were to

invite discussions with each of the other parties represented in the House. The Government's approach to these discussions was that a substantial majority of the House had approved the principles of the Bill in the vote on Second Reading and that subsequent votes in the Committee proceedings gave approval to the proposals for elected Assemblies for Scotland and Wales.
The Government's view was that any further consideration of the Bill should proceed within the general framework of the decisions which the House had already reached and be consistent with presenting the House with legislative proposals at an early date.
The Government therefore suggested that the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee of the House which would be empowered to consider the Bill on this basis. There was general support for the suggestion of a Select Committee, with the exception of the Scottish National Party, which declined to meet the Government to discuss the proposal. The Government believed that it was equally essential that there should be general acceptance of the terms of reference for any Select Committee. The Conservative Party, however, proposed wide-ranging terms of reference which in the view of the Government put at issue the whole concept of devolution and were consistent neither with the decisions of the House nor with early action by the House. Accordingly, the Government do not believe that in these circumstances it would be useful to proceed with the appointment of a Select Committee.
The Government remain wholly committed to the establishment of directly-elected Assemblies for Scotland and Wales. We believe that it is essential that Parliament should seek to reform our system of government to give the people of Scotland and Wales a more effective and democratic influence on those matters of government which directly concern them within the context of the unity of the United Kingdom.
It is no longer practicable to contemplate further progress on the Scotland and Wales Bill in this Session. However, it is our objective that legislation should be enacted next Session. To this end the Government are engaged in consultations on our proposals for legislation with our own supporters and the


Liberal Party, and we remain very ready to welcome representations from any other part of the House.

Mr. Pym: There will be disappointment and regret that the right hon. Gentleman has broken off the inter-party talks. Does he not realise that there can be no progress in this area as long as he sticks to a scheme which proved in debate to be riddled with flaws and not to command the support of the House?
There will be resentment at the right hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation of what we proposed. If he had accepted the proposal that I made four months ago, much progress could and would have been made by now. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in recommending the examination of all the viable alternatives for devolution we were reflecting the deep anxieties revealed in the debates in the House and giving expression to the widely-held feeling that the United Kingdom Parliament should make a more thorough and resolute attempt to solve the crucial constitutional problems that remained patently unsolved in the unlamented Scotland and Wales Bill?
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's prognostications for the future, what does he mean by "objective"? Is that a firm commitment? It does not sound like it.
Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper or some other document before any further Bill is produced, so that the House can see what his fresh ideas, if any, are? Have the Government decided to separate the Bill, to introduce one or two Bills, or how will it be done?
If this is the Government's considered response after four months, I think that the reaction will be one of astonishment at the absence of constructive ideas and disappointment at their rejection of our own proposals for the better handling of this vital matter.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that there will be any sense of resentment in any quarter about the rejection of the right hon. Gentleman's own plan, as we believe that that was a device to do nothing. It would have merely referred the matter back to pre-Kilbrandon days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Some hon. Members may ask "Why not?", but I see that the right hon. Gentleman, who was

responsible for the proposal, is shaking his head, so there must be some disagreement there. He is again shaking his head. I am not sure which way he is shaking it now. I think that it is up and down now, but it was the other way before. A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman was repudiating the idea that he was seeking to go back to a wide-ranging, pre-Kilbrandon discussion, but that is what some of his hon. Friends think his proposal meant and it is what many of us thought it meant. We believe that such a wide-ranging discussion could not be helpful in making any real progress to devolution, and that is why we rejected it.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether our objective was a firm commitment. It is the firm determination of the Government that legislation shall be presented in the next Session to carry out our obligation to both Scotland and Wales. We believe that perhaps it is best to proceed in the way we proposed before, but it is possible that it could be done in two Bills. These matters have not yet been settled. Obviously, they and some other matters would have to be decided first. These are some of the questions we are taking into account following our discussions with other parties.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be a further indication before we departed for the recess. Certainly we shall consider that, but our determination is to produce legislation for the next Session. We believe that the whole House should receive it in the spirit that what we propose is the best way to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we do not think that the way in which he has handled the matter will continue the unity of the United Kingdom in the way he says his party wants and the way the whole House wants? I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that the purpose of what we proposed was not what he suggested it was. It was clear to us all along that it was entirely possible to report within six months. If the right hon. Gentleman had started work way back in March, it would have been possible to make a great deal of progress now in solving the really difficult, fundamental, constitutional issues which remain to this day unresolved. No start has been made. To


misrepresent what we have been trying to do and the procedure that we have recommended is unreasonable. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman means to do that, but I resent very much that he should have appeared to try to do so.

Mr. Foot: I have not even tried to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. If I had wanted to, I am sure that it would have been easy, but I have not even tried.
The most damning thing to say about the right hon. Gentleman's proposals is to indicate what they truly involve, which is what I have already described—an examination of the whole matter afresh, going back to all the considerations involved in Kilbrandon. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals involved even wider proposals than that. To suggest that all that could have been carried out and that unanimous proposals could have been produced within six months for us to present to the House would be to mislead the House and the country.
What we propose is a practical way in which the House can proceed to carry out what it voted for by a majority of over 40 on Second Reading—on a matter of principle, to carry into operation an effective system of devolution.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that devolution is difficult is no excuse for doing nothing about it and that it would have been unacceptable to go back to wide discussions? Does he accept that the present consultations should be brought to an end before the Summer Recess and that a further detailed statement of substance should be made to the House before we rise for the recess?

Mr. Foot: I tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I indicated in reply to an earlier question, that I agree that it may very well be the best course that there should be a statement before the Summer Recess. I think that is very likely, but we are determined to produce legislation to be introduced at the beginning of the next Session.
Of course, we shall take into account both the discussions we have had with others and the discussions which are held during this period. As I have said, during this period and before we produce that legislation we are still ready to have discussions with those who wish to achieve

the best form of devolution that we can all carry through successfully. It would be very serious for the unity of the United Kingdom if this question were treated in a derisory fashion, as it is by some Members on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Anderson: Since the pledge for a referendum still stands, is it not worth considering holding it immediately after the Second Reading of the proposed new Bill, because at least in the case of Wales that would save a lot of parliamentary time?

Mr. Foot: As the House knows, we have had many discussions here about whether there should be a referendum and, if so, at what stage it might be sensibly held. The Government and the House came to the conclusion when we were discussing the Bill that there should be a referendum on these matters and that the referendum should take place after the Bill had passed through the House of Commons. I certainly think that that is much the best way in which it should be done.
As I have said on many occasions, I think that any referendum that is held before that stage would be of a far too imprecise nature. It might involve considerable dangers on that account. Some of those who are most enthusiastically in favour of it are also those who want to delay the operation of any devolution. The best course is that the referendum should take place when the people of Scotland and Wales know exactly what they will be voting about.

Mr. Powell: Will the Government be applying their mind between now and the beginning of next Session to the conundrum of the representation in this House of a major part of the United Kingdom which is to be given a legislative Assembly of its own? Will they refrain from introducing legislation again until they have succeeded in solving the problem which has hitherto defeated all who have attempted it?

Mr. Foot: I question whether it has defeated all who have attempted it. It is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the attempts to devise a devolved form of administration have defeated all those who have approached the subject since he comes from a part of the United Kingdom which had a devolved Administration for many years.


He cannot say that the proposal has eluded all attempts at bringing it into operation.
As he knows, there are quite a number of people in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents in this House who also favour a devolved Administration. We believe that, contrary to the suggestion that such a system cannot be devised, in fact it can be devised and it can be operated along the general lines we have proposed. We agree, however, that in reproducing these proposals we must take into account the criticisms which were made in various parts of the House on many of these matters and we must seek to improve the measures we are proposing on that account. However, to suggest that no devolved form of administration is possible is the gospel of despair, and that gospel could break up the United Kingdom if it were to be adopted.

Mr. Mackintosh: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's problems because I suspect that the vote on the guillotine was a more accurate reflection of the opinion of the House than was the vote on Second Reading, and I say that with regret. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if progress is to be made on this matter it will have to be in two stages? There is no point in proceeding with a devolution Bill which does not at least meet the views of those who have campaigned for devolution over the years in all the parties. I see one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches nodding in agreement. I see that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is in a similar position and that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not concerned with what the hon. Gentleman sees. Will he ask a question? I must warn the House that another major statement is to follow and that I can allow only a limited number of questions from hon. Members. If the questions are longer fewer hon. Members will be able to ask them.

Mr. Mackintosh: There are forces in all parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking my right hon. Friend whether it is not right to proceed

by two stages. The first is to produce a devolution Bill which meets the views of those in all parties who have supported devolution. The second is to consider whether this House will accept such a Bill. On the first, would it not be better to go back on the proposal that my right hon. Friend has rejected, of a Select Committee to try to produce a satisfactory Bill from the point of view of the devolvers?

Mr. Foot: The reason we have not gone further with the proposal for a Select Committee is precisely that there were some who were engaged in the discussions who were not prepared to take part in a Select Committee on the basis that my hon. Friend is suggesting. They were suggesting a Select Committee which should go much further back and much wider than anything that my hon. Friend has in mind.
I do not know on what authority my hon. Friend suggests that we should discount the vote on Second Reading. I have always understood that a vote on Second Reading—on the principle of a Bill—is the most important vote on a Bill. I believe that we are entitled to proceed on the basis of the vote on that principle, and that is what we shall do. I hope that my hon. Friend, having given support to the principle of a devolution Bill up to the present, will not now desert us.

Mr. Reid: Yet another whitewash job! Does the right hon. Gentleman expect any other reaction from the Scots Press and public tomorrow to today's particularly empty and barren piece of paper? Has he forgotten the promises and clear binding commitments of October 1974, the guarantees of a "Scottish powerhouse"? Why has he ignored the dire warnings of his own Scottish Council of the Labour Party, the Liberal inputs, the talk of fiscal powers? Will he accept that this Bench and the SNP are prepared to react positively to any genuinely constructive proposals but that the one way to jolt Westminster out of its current complacency is the return of a vastly increased number of nationalist Members at the next General Election? Where is the Government's majority to be conjured up from next Session? Will the right hon. Gentleman do us a service and explain that?

Mr. Foot: The Government are not going back on the principles that we enunciated when we presented the Bill and when we presented our case to the electorate before that. We have not gone back on those principles. We are seeking the best way in which we can get support in the House to carry them into effect.
I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be prepared to support these proposals. The only proposals that he and his hon. Friends made to us during these discussions were proposals for a draft Bill on the matter, a Bill which would not have had the slightest chance of passing this House in either this century or the next. Therefore I do not regard that as a serious proposal for devolution or a serious proposal for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly. What we are proposing is the shortest and best way of getting an Assembly established, and I hope that all those genuine supporters of devolution will back us in getting it through.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in any new legislation he proposes to introduce he will look more favourably than in the past at the suggestion of providing taxing powers for a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Foot: This is one of the matters we have looked at exhaustively. We did that before introducing our original legislation. We have looked at it afresh, because it was one of the matters which were persistently referred to during the debates and it is one of the matters to which we must give the most serious consideration. We have not yet found a solution to that problem, although we are prepared in the consultations which continue to seek to do so. That is the situation, and I do not believe that any hon. Member who has seriously considered this problem could suggest that it is as easy to solve as some people are suggesting. That does not mean to say that we should not go on searching for a proper solution.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that today's non-statement will be seen by many people in Wales as ample confirmation, after three or four months' discussion, that the Government have made no progress and do not have the determination to see progress made in this matter? If he disagrees, will he give any confirmation, on behalf of him-

self and the Prime Minister, that the Government are so concerned about this matter as to make it an issue of confidence in the next parliamentary Session?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is altogether misrepresenting what I have said. The Government are determined to proceed with proposals for devolution, precisely for the reasons that the Government have stated on many occasions. It is true that we were blocked by the vote on the timetable motion. We then sought to see whether it would be possible to proceed in the later period through a Select Committee. We had discussions seriously on that basis to see whether that would be the next best way forward. But when we discovered that there were considerable indications that the House did not want a Select Committee on the basis that we believed to be the only right way to proceed, we then had to consider what was the next best way to do it. We have proposed legislation that will be introduced in the next Session, and that legislation will give the opportunity to the country to carry through the proposals that the Government have made.

Mr. English: Was it inadvertence or governmental mismanagement that caused my right hon. Friend to make this statement without mentioning England or the English regions? Does he realise that practically the whole of the United Kingdom is fed up with small details being decided in Whitehall, and that the five-sixths of his supporters in this House of Commons who represent English constituencies will not go on supporting him any more unless he and the Government decide what to do about devolving some of those small details so that they may be decided in Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol and the rest of the regions 01 the United Kingdom?

Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend knows very well—he attended the meeting at which we discussed these matters—I had a meeting with every section of the Parliamentary Labour Party on these questions. That included the group from the Midlands. We discussed all these matters in detail then, I have fully indicated to him that all representations that he and his hon. Friends wished to make on that subject would be fully considered.
What we are proposing is to deal with the Scotland and Wales situation first at the beginning of next Session. It has always been made clear—and in the discussions that we had with the other Members of the Labour Party it was always made clear—that we would proceed in that fashion. I have not heard a single Member of the Parliamentary Labour Party who favoured devolution and who objected to that proposition. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that there is anything wrong in the way that we are proposing to proceed.

Sir David Renton: As the Opposition proposals would have enabled the various alternatives set out in the Kilbrandon Report to be considered, is it not misleading and unfair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that those proposals take us back to a pre-Kilbrandon position? Why is it that after all this time of indecisive consideration the Government are still unable to say whether there will be one Bill for Scotland and Wales next Session or two?

Hon. Members: Because they do not know.

Mr. Foot: On the second question, I appreciate the importance of the matter, but, as I have said, we have not decided whether the proposals should be in one Bill or two. I am not diminishing the significance of the matter.
On the first question, I am not seeking to mislead or misrepresent anything put to us on this matter. All I ask those who are suggesting an inter-party committee or convention—the proposal made by the Conservative Party—is whether they think that would not involve going back to the whole Kilbrandon discussion. If they will look at the terms of reference which were suggested they will see that this confirms exactly what I have said.

Mr. Gourlay: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we in Scotland welcome his statement this afternoon reaffirming the Government's commitment to devolution in Scotland and Wales? [Interruption.] There is no need for Opposition Members to laugh at a very serious matter. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the view of many of us in Scotland that next Session he should introduce two separate Bills,

so that we could at least have the reality of a Scottish Assembly in 1978.

Mr. Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend said in his last point, and I have already commented on that. What we are proposing, certainly from all the indications, is to combine a genuine establishment of a Scottish Assembly with the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom, and the establishment of a Welsh Assembly with the maintenance of the United Kingdom. What we are proposing also conforms to what appears to be the majority opinion certainly in Scotland and probably in Wales, and over the country as a whole. What is proposed by others certainly does not. The Scottish National Party proposes a completely separatist position. What the Conservative Party now proposes is a retreat even from its own earlier timid proposals on devolution. Therefore our proposals represent the majority of opinion.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord President realise that any new Scotland and Wales Bill will come to the same sticky end as its predecessor unless it deals with the fundamental problems of the powers of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House after devolution? Does he not appreciate that the alternatives are either no devolution or parallel devolution throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Foot: I think that the second remedy or suggestion is a recipe for the postponement of devolution for many years. That has great dangers, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know the dangers of proposing that devolution should be postponed in that manner or until such a time as nobody would know whether anything was to be done at all.
On the first proposition, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question, this was one of the matters considered by the Kilbrandon Committee. It examined the proposition of an in-and-out method by which Members of Parliament might operate. It rejected it, and the Government have acted on the basis of that rejection.

Mr. Heifer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House are not opposed to the Government having the widest possible discussions on this matter and that nor are we opposed to the Government


bringing in one, two or three Bills? Is he aware that we should welcome such discussions in the next Session? Is he also aware that it would be most unwise to suggest that there should be a timetable to force such a Bill through?

Mr. Foot: With my supersensitivity, I have understood my hon. Friend's views on this matter. They have penetrated my mind. I am fully aware of his views on the subject. I am also fully aware of the reiterated views of the Labour Party both in Scotland and in Wales. By overwhelming majorities they have urged upon the Government that we should proceed as fast as possible along the lines that we are proposing. That is what we are seeking to do, and that is why we are seeking to ask a majority of the House of Commons, when we come to the next Session, to carry through such a measure as this, which will achieve those objectives but will take into account many of the criticisms made before in the House of Commons.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the constitutional confusion which is now bound to spread, and in view of the uncertainty, will the right hon. Gentleman consider postponing the question of direct elections to the European Parliament until these matters have been internally resolved?

Mr. Foot: I fully understand that that might be a popular proposal in some quarters. I am not quite sure whether it would unite the House of Commons, but I hope that the House as a whole will not think that these two propositions are interdependent. I believe that when the House of Commons voted seriously on Second Reading on the principle of devolution, it gave an indication to the Government how they should proceed, and it is on that foundation that we are proposing to go forward.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to take two more speakers from each side. We have been half an hour already on this matter.

Dr. Phipps: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to assure the Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party that when this Bill comes—or these Bills come—to the Floor of the House, it will be

treated, in regard to matters of Cabinet responsibility, guillotines and three-line Whips, in exactly the same way as the Government intend to treat the Bill on direct elections to the European Parliament?

Mr. Foot: So far as I can see, it would not make any difference to my hon. Friend which recommendations are made because he is apparently absolutely determined not to support Labour Party policy on these matters. However, there may be others who will be more open to conversion, and we must try them first.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the view that he expressed during the debates on the European Communities Bill, namely, that radical constitutional change should not be attempted without the support of all the major parties in the State?

Mr. Foot: What I said in the debates was that we should certainly seek to have the full-hearted consent of the British people. That was what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, and, as he said it, I thought there would be no harm in our suggesting that that is what should occur. My view about major constitutional proposals for changing the constitution of this country, and in particular the power of this Parliament, is that such proposals should be included in party manifestos that are put to the electorate. That was not so in the case of the measure for taking us into the Common Market, because the proposal in the manifesto then was not to invite support for a specific transfer of power but rather to involve the possibility of negotiating or not negotiating, no more and no less.
That is not what we said in our manifestos. Both in February and October we put clearly to the people what our proposals were for carrying through a devolution measure and, therefore, we have a mandate from the country to carry this measure on to the statute book.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he continues to believe that the vote on Second Reading is a charter for further progress on devolution through the House he is trying to sustain the completely untenable political idea that there is life after death on this subject? If, for instance, he were to come forward


with a Liberal idea about taxation powers, those hon. Members who could accept a measure of devolution for Scotland would have the greatest possible difficulty in supporting him. My right hon. Friend had better rethink that one.
Would it not be more sensible to use up the slack months during the summer actually to secure the measured consent of the Scottish and Welsh people to the very firm proposition that the Government must put to them, on the basis of a Government Bill or White Paper, asking for their vote in a referendum on whether we should have devolution as understood by the Scottish and Welsh people on the basis of the Government's proposals?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has put the proposal for a referendum on many occasions but I believe that the objections to it are very serious. With regard to taking up slack time, both he and I went to Llandudno and used some of our slack time to present our views on this matter to the representative, democratic assembly of the Labour Party in Wales. My hon. Friend's eloquence was so persistent and overpowering that he lost the vote again. What happened was that the party voted overwhelmingly for what we are now doing. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a few more slack weekends when he can learn what the people of Wales want.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Lord President not aware that his answers this afternoon, and the responses from the Tory Front Bench, are a confirmation to the people of Scotland that they cannot trust Westminster parties to look after their interests? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the point made in an oblique way by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there is no point in coming up with any further proposals until he can assure the House that the Government are able to carry a timetable motion for such a Bill? Without that this is just PR and window-dressing and a monumental waste of time.

Mr. Foot: What the people of Scotland should take note of is that all the SNP has sought to do during this period is to present a Bill which would not have the faintest chance of getting through the House of Commons. It was therefore

not a serious proposal at all. It was just a propagandist exercise.
What we are proposing is a Bill which can go through the House of Commons, such as that which commanded a majority on Second Reading but which has also taken into account the criticisms made of the fact that we were not successful in getting a timetable motion approved. All these factors have to be taken into account, and that is what we are doing. Therefore, however much the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise this matter, he will not convince people in Scotland that we are not in earnest. Of course we are.

VACCINE DAMAGE

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning those damaged by vaccination.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today published the text of an exchange of letters between himself and Lord Pearson, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, about payments for the benefit of those who are seriously damaged as a result of vaccination. Copies of the correspondence have been placed in the Library.
In his reply to my right hon. Friend, Lord Pearson says:
the Royal Commission has indeed got very much in mind the problem of vaccine damage. We see it as a particular part of a very difficult field with which our Report will have to deal, but we have all reached the conclusion that some kind of financial assistance should be made available for very serious injury resulting from vaccination recommended by a public health authority ".
I am glad to inform the House that, in the light of the conclusion which the Royal Commission has reached, the Government have decided to accept in principle that there should be a scheme of payments for the benefit of those who are seriously damaged as a result of vaccination, and that it will apply to existing, as well as new, cases.
The House will understand that there were good reasons for the Government's reluctance to enter into a firm commitment in advance of their knowing the views of the Royal Commission. We


still do not know the details of the recommendations which the Royal Commission will be making, but in the exceptional circumstances of vaccine-damaged children, and bearing in mind the strong case which has been made on their behalf and the importance which the Government attach to the vaccination programme, we have decided that it would be right to make this clear commitment.
The detailed provisions of the scheme, including particularly the criteria which must be satisfied to establish entitlement and the nature of the amount of the payments, cannot be determined until we have received and considered the Royal Commission's Report. Although it will therefore not be possible for any scheme of payments to be put into effect for some time, I believe that this advance announcement of the Government's intention will be welcomed by the House generally and by the public at large.

Dr. Vaughan: The Conservative Opposition believe that the statement today will be widely welcomed and we are naturally very pleased that this decision has now been taken. There is no doubt that the uncertainty has been very damaging and distressing to the families concerned and that the delay has led to serious difficulties for the various immunisation programmes. But anxiety is bound to continue until the details of this new arrangement are known. Since no payment can be made until the Commission reports, will the Secretary of State now tell us when he expects to receive the report? Will he also continue his inquiries into the efficacy of whooping cough vaccination generally and then make a statement on that subject?

Mr. Ennals: Yes. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the statement will be of great relief to families and others who have been concerned about these matters. I understand that the Royal Commission will be reporting later this year, but I cannot give the exact date. However, it will be during the autumn. Certainly, as soon as that report is received we shall immediately—without any delay at all—seek not only to explore and examine the report but to set up a scheme so that payment can be made.
Of course, I cannot give the date, because until the report is published I

cannot say what the date will be. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to publish and prepare a report, and all the evidence that has been made available will be published next week. I will ensure that a statement is made in the House.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement is a victory for common sense and that it establishes an entirely new principle of British social policy by compensating those who take risks, however small, for the social good? The families concerned will be deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all redouble our efforts to obtain massive public support for vaccines when there is no conflict of medical opinion about their safety and efficacy?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has put up a very brave battle on behalf of vaccine-damaged children. I am glad that he has called for massive public support for a vaccine programme. In recent years there has been an alarming drop in the use of vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus and polio. Since 1972 there has been a 27 per cent. fall in those vaccinations. The fall in the number of vaccinations against whooping cough since 1972 has been 58·6 per cent. If this trend continues, it can only lead to a recurrence of serious communicable disease in this country on a scale that has not been seen for many years. This trend should be reversed as quickly as possible, and I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hannam: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that all those concerned with disablement will welcome his statement? Will he also accept that congratulations should go to Mrs. Rosemary Fox for the part played by the Association of Vaccine-Damaged Children in its campaign in recent years? Does he not also accept that many hon. Members believe that the campaign of immunisation must be stepped up once again to ensure that the whole system does not break down, thus resulting in grave damage to children in future?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I wish to


echo his tribute to Mrs. Fox and her colleagues in the Association for Vaccine-Damaged Children. They have shown restraint and great concern, and I appreciate all they have done.
There will be a campaign on this matter, and I hope that it will start soon. The report of the joint committee stands firm and united in its recommendation that the risks of vaccination are much less than the risks of failure to inoculate. With the use of material now being prepared by the Health Education Council for the use of doctors, nurses and parents, we shall be able to get the message home to parents that failure to vaccinate carries with it grave risks for the future of their children.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people will congratulate him on his statement? May I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the part he has played? Will my right hon. Friend accept from a humble general practitioner the necessity to continue vaccination and immunisation campaigns? If we do not continue this practice, there could be dire consequences for the child population and a return of extremely serious diseases such as diphtheria and whooping cough, which are a danger to babies and young children? Will he see to it that no form of euphoria is allowed to develop, and will he insist on pressing on the general public the necessity for vaccination and immunisation?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, for he is a doctor. One of the reasons why it was important to make this statement today was to enable the public to put into perspective the risks of failure to vaccinate compared with the modest risks that go with any vaccination. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the dangers to young people in the absence of vaccination. To instance polio, there have been 12 notified cases in the first six months of this year, a period when one would not expect there to have been many notified cases. This compares with two cases in the whole of 1975 and 10 in 1976. The figures are increasing, even though we have not yet reached the stage when we expect there to be a further peak. Therefore, on the basis of the

material before us and the report of the joint advisory committee, I intend to see that there is a major campaign aimed at getting people to think of the interests of their own children, because they are also the nation's children.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the firm commitment contained in his statement, but regret that there is no actual compensation to be paid? Some of the children affected have now grown up. Those who appear to qualify for payments will wish to know how they should set about submitting claims. Is it not possible for the Government to set out the criteria now, so that when the Royal Commission reports the Government can act speedily in making payments?

Mr. Ennals: We cannot do that. We must first obtain the Royal Commission's report, and we shall then consider it and work out a detailed scheme to bring into operation. We shall be doing advance work in the Department so that we shall be ready with the various proposals for such a scheme. This will all take time. It will be impossible to initiate a scheme until the Royal Commission has made its recommendations and we have considered them in detail.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the courage to deal with this matter. As one who has campaigned on this topic for many years I wish to thank him very much indeed. Will he say a little more about the statutory limitations? We all have experience of constituents with vaccine-damaged children who are now 14 or 15 years old. I hope that they will be able to obtain the benefit of compensation as well as the children who may be damaged by vaccines this year. Will he accept that if he takes that step he will have the enthusiastic support of many of those who have campaigned to immunise children against any disease in which the case is proven?

Mr. Ennals: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. They are not directed to me, since this was a Government decision and it is right that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my colleagues should share in those words of thanks. I shall consider the legal


matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious that parents should understand the situation, both in relation to those who may need to make claims and those who are taking the difficult decision whether to have their children vaccinated.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this statement will be warmly welcomed by hon. Members, such as myself, who have met these cases in our constituencies? Will he confirm that his statement applies to all forms of vaccines and not simply to whooping cough vaccines, as suggested in the Press? In setting the criteria for applications will he bear in mind that some of the cases go back over a decade and that the standard of proof required will have to reflect the lapse of time in those cases?

Mr. Ennals: I agree that some of these cases go back as long as 20 years. Tragically, some children who were brain-damaged have already died. One of the most difficult tasks for the Royal Commission and for the Government is that of establishing the criteria for determining whether damage is due to vaccines. The further back one goes, the more difficult is the problem. I do not wish to comment any further on that matter. These are points that we shall consider.
This is compensation for all types of damage that might result from any type of vaccine where it is Government policy to recommend that it should be offered to the public.

Mr. Thompson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the statement. Is there any significance in the fact that, although Lord Pearson talks of "very serious damage", the Minister's statement refers simply to "serious damage"? Does that mean that the Minister will be taking an even kinder look at the situation than Lord Pearson has?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that until I have seen the report I can start drawing a line between what is "serious" and what is "very serious". The Government are genuine in wishing to ensure that there is some form of payment and are genuine in wishing to reassure the public. When we have said that the risks are very small, we are prepared to put our wallet behind our words.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the Minister appreciate that many people will be greatly relieved by his statement? Does he appreciate that he has helped to raise the hopes of large numbers of families? Since some of those families will find difficulty because of the lapse of time in establishing the facts about inoculation, will the right hon. Gentleman be careful in laying down regulations to see that a certain amount of discretion is allowed when seeking to establish grounds?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, I shall.

Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call those hon. Members who have risen before, but not those who have just got up.

Mr. Loyden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he has brought this matter before the House. In so doing he is removing much of the uncertainty about the vaccination programme. Will he consider those who are over 15 years old and who may have great difficulty in identifying and proving the origin of their damage? Will he agree that a most flexible approach should be made and that today's statement should be given the widest possible publicity in order to restore confidence in the vaccination programme, which has inevitably suffered?

Mr. Ennals: The fact that I said that there would be retrospection—and this is an important part of my statement-showed that we must be flexible in determining the kind of system. The House cannot expect me to give any further details today.

Mr. Adley: Will the Secretary of State accept that everybody who was in any way connected with these tragic cases will be unreservedly grateful to him for the generosity that the Government have shown and the manner in which they have shown it in extending the compensation scheme backwards to many diseases? Will he accept that the failure to provide compensation was putting people off having their children immunised, because they feared that if the Government were not prepared to pay compensation there must be a lot more in the situation than met the eye? Will he agree that those of us who have campaigned on behalf of these children


now have a duty to see that the immunisation campaign is speeded up?
Will the Secretary of State come forward as soon as possible with proposals about the onus of proof, because many people will wonder what they have to do to prove that they are eligible for compensation? Will he indicate that if there is any doubt, compensation will be available?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot go any further than I have already about the system of determination. These things have to be worked out. I cannot accept the hon. Member's initial conclusion, which is a matter for an interesting debate. I believe that most parents deciding whether to have their children vaccinated consider the risks involved. Whether they may be compensated is only a small part of it. However, I agree that it does reassure people that the risk is small when the Government are prepared to compensate for that small risk, and that is an important element.
The very nature of the campaign inevitably concentrated on the risks and brought them before the public, and this has done damage to the programme. I agree that those hon. Members who were especially involved—such as the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—in a sense have an obligation to do everything they can to put their strength behind the vaccination programme and get it up to the maximum extent.

Sir George Young: In view of the serious medical problems in attributing the handicap to vaccine or to other causes, will not this arrangement give rise to a risk of depressing arguments about entitlement? Would it not be fairer to compensate children for handicap, however it is caused?

Mr. Ennals: That raises another question. There are large numbers of children who are damaged for reasons that are not connected with State policy. There are also a number of children who are born mongols. But I think that it is right to

isolate this aspect, get it clarified, and make the statement, as I have today.

Mr. Awdry: Will the Secretary of State agree that some parents will find it very difficult to get early medical records? If such cases are brought to his notice, will he do all he can to help them?

Mr. Ennals: I feel certain that no Secretary of State, or any other Minister, should determine whether anyone is entitled. There will be some system by which medical adjudication is made, but it would be wrong for that responsibility to fall on the Secretary of State. It will be the Secretary of State's responsibility, however, to make sure that the system is flexible and effective.

Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one hon. Member who stood up late.

Miss Joan Lestor: I appreciate all that my right hon. Friend has said about vaccination, but will he agree that there is continued controversy among members of the medical profession—and this has received widespread publicity recently—about the efficacy of the whooping cough vaccine? This has done as much to dissuade parents as the lack of any financial compensation. When my right hon. Friend stresses the need for vaccination, is he confident that such controversy as exists does not relate to any factor that would encourage or be responsible for the damage continuing?

Mr. Ennals: The report by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—an independent body which advises me—will be published next week. The committee, which includes experts in general medicine, infectious diseases, paediatric neurology, and other fields, has now analysed all the evidence, including that from those who have criticised the vaccination programme. The evidence and the committee's conclusions will be published next week and that more than anything that I have said today will give reassurance to the public and will be the basis for an effective vaccination campaign.

STANDING COMMITTEES (SITTING TIMES)

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful to be able to raise this point of order, which may be also a point of privilege. I am glad to see that the Lord President is in the Chamber to hear it.
I wish to raise the subject of the protection of Back Benchers of small parties and the time that they spend on Committee meetings in the House. This practice has developed particularly in recent weeks. For someone in a small party, such as my own, who wants to be present for as many debates as possible in this Chamber, there is considerable difficulty when Committees choose to meet in the evenings rather than in the mornings.
Some Committees deliberately choose not to meet in the mornings, and the reasons given for this may suggest a matter of privilege. For example, on the Finance Bill Committee the reasons given for meeting only in the evenings is that that is more convenient for outside advisers. What it means is that it is more convenient for those who advise Members of the Conservative Party. That situation makes it impossible for people like me to be upstairs in Committee and at the same time participating in debates in the Chamber.
Surely Committees should meet where-ever possible in the mornings first and thereafter in the evenings.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member to state his case, but I must point out that the responsibility for the arrangement of the business of the House and of Committees does not lie with me. That responsibility lies elsewhere.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Dr. McDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of privilege. This matter relates to a circular published by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Whereas I respect the right of that society to lobby Members of Parliament, this circular attempts to prevent hon. Members from voting in accordance with their consciences on the Standing Committee on the

Abortion (Amendment) Bill, and it attempts to stir up hatred against individual named Members.
The circular says:
"The Standing Committee in respect of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has been established. Bill Benyon is delighted that it stands at nine to seven in our favour. The following MPs will be serving on it:
OUR SUPPORTERS: Mr. W. Benyon; Sir Bernard Braine; Mr. Alan Clark; Mr. Ian Campbell; Mrs. Winifred Ewing; Mrs. Jill Knight; Mr. Keith Stainton; Mr. Ivor Stanbrook; Mr. James White.
OUR ENEMIES: Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun; Dr. Oonagh McDonald; Mr. Roland Moyle; Miss Jo Richardson; Mrs. Renée Short: Sir George Sinclair; Mrs. Audrey Wise."
Note that it calls the opponents "enemies". The circular goes on:
The Standing Committee will begin its sessions towards the end of June, probably June 22nd.
Be sure that your MP is swamped with letters urging him to sign the Early Day Motion so that we can finish 'the job' (or, at least, so that Parliament can finish the job). Love to you all, Phyllis Bowman.

Mr. Speaker: Following recent practice, I shall give a decision tomorrow when I have had an opportunity to consider the matter in depth.

Mr. Rhodes James: Further to this point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to a sentence on the same document that was not quoted by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), but that seems to me to be much more serious than the part she quoted. It relates to an Early-Day Motion that certain hon. Members have put down about this Bill. I shall not go into whether the Early-Day Motion contains any inaccuracies, but I must point out that, after urging people to write to their Members of Parliament calling on them to support the Early-Day Motion and urging announcements in churches asking people to write to their MPs, the circular says:
Anybody who opposes the Early Day Motion is, in effect, preventing the true, democratic running of Parliament and is opposing freedom of speech.
That is not only an inaccurate statement, but it gravely reflects on both the House and hon. Members. I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if, when considering the matter raised by the hon. Member for


Thurrock, you would also take that statement into account.

Mr. Speaker: I shall, of course, take the whole document into account.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put these two motions together.

Ordered,

That the Haddock (Restrictions on Landing) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977, No. 781) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]

APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADORS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a democratic system of appointment of Ambassadors and other public servants; and for connected purposes.
An alternative short title for my Bill might have been "The Anti-Patronage Bill", because it is my intention to curb the powers of patronage of various Ministers. It is no coincidence that I tabled this motion on the very day that Mr. Peter Jay was announced as our new Ambassador to the United States of America.
Following that announcement, there was what to my mind was a foreseeable outrage throughout the whole country, particularly within the Labour movement. There were allegations of nepotism. In answer to these allegations, we were told that Mr. Jay, despite the fact that he is the Prime Minister's son-in-law, also happens to be the cleverest man in Britain. However, his cleverness seemed to escape the Labour Party selection conference in Islington, which rejected him as a parliamentary candidate. Nevertheless, I still maintain that Mr. Jay has certainly shown an odd streak of cleverness, particularly in his opposition to the Common Market. I only wish that his father-in-law showed the same intellectual commitment.
A few years ago, Mr. Jay, in one of his frequent predictions, stated that democracy in this country would be suspended by 1980, give or take a few years. It may be coincidence or otherwise that, only two and a half years away from 1980, there seems to be a significant suspension or absence of democracy in the method of the appointment of Mr. Jay to a post with a salary of more than £18,000 a year plus expenses of more than £40,000 a year. Although Mr. Jay's appointment received a lot of publicity, it is by no means unique. The undemocratic method of his appointment to the post of ambassador is by no means unique in British politics.
Just before the Whitsun Recess I tabled a Question to every Government Department asking the Ministers responsible to


tell me what public appointments they were responsible for, who were the current holders of those appointments and what were their salaries, allowances and expenses.
Many of the replies were evasive, to say the least. Nevertheless, I managed to glean enough information to state categorically that there are literally thousands of jobs for the boys which can be given out by Ministers.
Top of the league comes the Lord Chancellor, who is in charge of 800 full-time appointments and, believe it or not, the magnificent total of 35,000 part-time appointments. That makes the Secretary of State for Scotland's total of 700 paid appointments and 4,000 unpaid appointments seem very modest by comparison.
Some Departments were very coy about giving me full detailed information. The following Departments—Northern Ireland, Employment, Trade, Education and Science, Transport, Environment, Social Services, the Foreign Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection—attempted to hide behind that favourite ministerial face-saver, that the appropriate full and detailed information could not be arrived at except at disproportionate cost to public funds.
Let us look at some of the disproportionate cost to public funds. For example, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection—by no means the worst example—has listed for me 104 salaried appointments with an aggregate salary of £232,393 per annum. I should not mind a quarter of a million pounds being spent if I thought that the money was going to a good cause and that those appointed were helping to control and keep down prices in the interests of the consumer. But I doubt whether our poor housewives, who are faced with an inflation rate still over 17 per cent., would agree that that is public money well spent.
It is difficult to estimate allowances to any great degree of accuracy, because many of the posts are not salaried as such. Instead, the people holding those appointments receive attendance allowances, travelling allowances, subsistence money, and so on. However, it would be interesting to know exactly how much it costs the Department of Employment to fund the members of the Coffin, Furniture

and Cement-Making Wages Council and how much it costs the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to pay the expenses of the members of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Panel on Rhubarb.
Not all appointments are salaried, but, whether they are salaried or not, they are all positions of great importance and they require a democratic method of appointment. Without a democratic method of appointment, it is doubtful whether we get the best-qualified people for the jobs. For example, I am sure that the hard-working, conscientious students and staff of Stirling University in my constituency would be more than a little surprised to know that a good Socialist like my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is apparently in favour of the appointment to the University of Stirling Conference a man who, frankly. I know to be one of the most Right-wing reactionary Tory backwoodsmen in the whole of West Stirlingshire.
I should like the system of appointment to be improved. When considering methods of improvement, we could do worse than look at the promised land to which Mr. Jay has been sent by his father-in-law. I do not maintain that the United States of America is a perfect democracy—not by any means, but, in the appointment of people to public posts, it is at least two centuries ahead of us. Article 2, Section 2, of the American Constitution lays down that the President can propose nominations, but the Presidential nominations for public appointments must be approved by the Senate.
I want to introduce a similar system for public appointments in this country. I suggest that we should require the approval of the House of Commons and, in appropriate cases—such as the appointment of the chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards—of the appropriate trade unions, thereby introducing an element of parliamentary as well as industrial democracy. For example, Sir Richard Marsh, who was a former Chairman of British Rail, did not, by his own confession, believe in public ownership. Similarly, Sir Frank McFadzean, the Chairman of British Airways, has also been critical of public ownership. I think that if workers in industry and Members of Parliament were more involved in the selection of


such people, we should not have some of the poor appointments which have been made in the past.
I suggest that the Minister responsible would still be able to put forward his nominations to a Select Committee which would have the opportunity of scrutinising the nominations and of making recommendations to the House of Commons. That would be a fairer system of appointment than we have now and would reduce or eliminate altogether the possibility of abuse. It would avoid the nasty allegations of nepotism against the Prime Minister. Above all, it would be a gigantic step forward for democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Tom McMillan, Mr. Harry Cowans, Dr. Maurice Miller, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADORS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a democratic system of appointment of Ambassadors and other public servants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, the Coal Industry Bill completed its proceedings in Committee more than a month ago, but the Official Report of the last two sittings of the Committee's proceedings has still not appeared in print. I have just checked again with Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and the Official Report is not available. Normally, that might not be considered as all that unusual, bearing in mind the number of industrial disputes that we have had over Government publications and parliamentary papers. In this case, however, I submit that it is of considerable importance and I seek the guidance of the Chair.
More than a month has elapsed, and the reports on the two sittings have not yet appeared in the Official Report. They relate to two crucial clauses in the Bill. They are Clause 10 and Clause 11, which are most controversial and contentious. Clause 10 refers to the wide expansion of the power of the National Coal Board in mining operations other than coal. Clause 11 gives the Coal Board wide powers to extend its mining operations abroad.
These clauses were adequately and extensively debated in Committee, but the conclusions reached and the response of the Minister to the various amendments and proposals and the opposition that was put forward by Conservative Members have not been recorded. Moreover, there are a large number of outside representations that hon. Members—certainly hon. Members on this side of the House—have received. No doubt hon. Members on the Government side have also received representations relating to possible redundancies in the industries affected in the private sector involved with mining and from the quarrying companies. These companies have made extensive representations, and they have expressed anxiety that they have not been


able to see an official record of the Government's reaction to the representations of hon. Members on this side. I ask the Chair to consider three points and to give guidance.
First, how can the Committee report to the House on its proceedings when the Official Report has not been made available? Surely that is an abuse of the whole principle of our procedures. We are supposed to be at Report stage, reporting on the procedures of the Committee, but the proceedings of the Committee have not been made widely available, except in a sketchy duplicate form of which two copies are available in the Library. They are certainly not available at the Stationery Office outside the Palace of Westminster and they have not been made available to members of the public. Is it correct procedure that the Committee should be asked to report to the House without the evidence being available for all to see?
Second, how can we have protection for the many widely expressed anxieties from outside bodies and for our constituents—I refer to Clauses 10 and 11—when the full response to the representations that we made in Committee have not been seen by those outside bodies and their reactions have therefore not been available so that we may refer to them again or put forward further amendments on Report? This has not been possible simply because the communications have not been allowed to operate in the normal parliamentary democratic way. As this is a matter of great concern, and as many constituencies are involved and jobs are at risk, I suggest that this is not merely an academic point.
Third, I seek the guidance of the Chair about what precedents there have been in the House for a Report stage to proceed on the Floor of the House without the Official Report having been properly published and considered and made available to all those outside these narrow clerical precincts who might wish to see them and when only brief, sketchy copies have been made available in the Library. What precedents are there for the Report stage of a Bill, to proceed when the Official Report has not been published and made available in the normal way?

Mr. Hamish Gray: Further to that point of order,

Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). The Report stage coming so closely after the recess has also meant that a number of hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have been approached by outside bodies. Therefore, hon. Members have been anxious to read the reports of the Committee stage.
With particular reference to Clause 10, the mineral extraction industry is extremely worried about the effects of the clause and members of the industry's various associations have been in touch with many hon. Members in the hope that they would raise points on their behalf at this stage. It becomes extremely difficult for hon. Members who were not members of the Committee to try to ascertain what took place during the debates on Clause 10, particularly when they have not had an opportunity of reading the replies given by the Minister. It may be that some of those replies would satisfy some of my hon. Friends, but they have no way of knowing this when they have not had an opportunity of reading the replies.
This is a serious matter, because if we are to consider the Report stage properly it is essential that hon. Members who were on the Committee and those who were not should have an opportunity of reading the proceedings.

Mr. J. Grimond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support what has been said, particularly about Clause 10. I was not on the Committee but I have received many representations about Clause 10 and the extra powers that are to be given to the National Coal Board. Some things were said in Committee that might have reassured those who are worried about Clause 10, but they have not been able to read them. It is true that copies of the reports of the proceedings are in the Library, but they are not generally available to the public who are concerned about coal. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for hon. Members to deal with representations from outside. This has been a most unfortunate combination of events, and I hope that never again must we consider a Bill on Report when the report of the proceedings in Committee is not available to the House.

Sir John Langford-Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find myself in precisely the same position as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The fact remains—I shall not enlarge on what has been said—that the House is being invited to discuss something about which it has no information. That is wholly unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to many other hon. Members. It would have been quite unacceptable to the Minister had he been sitting on this side of the House. I wonder whether, in these circumstances, the Chair would be prepared to accept a motion that the House should adjourn further discussion on the Bill until these papers become available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I may answer the last question first. The answer is "No". I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker desires me to thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who raised the original point of order, for giving him notice. The House will be aware of the printing difficulties which adversely affected the production of parliamentary papers before the Whitsuntide Adjournment, and it is those difficulties which have caused the delay in producing the Official Report of Standing Committee proceedings.
In the case of the Coal Industry Bill, which is the matter now under discussion, the Standing Committee held 11 sittings. The printed Official Report of the first nine sittings has been published, and Mr. Speaker has arranged for copies of the typescript of the Official Report for the tenth and eleventh sittings of the Standing Committee to be placed in the Library. Eventually, the remaining two will be published.
On the point about outside representations, the Chair understands the inconvenience which is caused to the general public, but it can take no action other than that which has already been taken. On the point about precedents, I can assure the House that this problem has occurred on previous occasions.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to thank you and Mr. Speaker for the rul-

ing. I am sure that it is of assistance to all hon. Members.
I apologise to the House for the fact that full reports are not available. I acknowledge that this leads to some difficulties, and I am not trying to dismiss them, but the House knows that we had difficulties with printing. We have sought to overcome them and, as your statement indicates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, efforts have been made to meet the difficulties.
I hope that the House will be willing to proceed with the Bill on that basis. Reports of the proceedings of the first nine sittings are available in the normal way. Copies of the reports of the proceedings at the last two sittings have been made available in the way that you described. You also indicated that this is not an unprecedented situation. We have sought to do all that we can to overcome the printing difficulties of a few weeks ago, and I hope that the House will now proceed.
I understand why hon. Members have raised these questions, but I hope that the House is now willing to proceed. We recognise that we must always strive to overcome such difficulties and to prevent them from happening.

Mr. Rost: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your statement, but it does not add anything new. We are well aware that copies of the Official Report of the last two sittings are not available. It has been admitted that this causes inconvenience to outside bodies, but that goes no way towards solving the problem. It is surely a derogation of the democratic principles of our parliamentary proceedings for the Report stage to continue when copies of the Official Report have not been made available to outside bodies so that they may express their anxiety and be consulted on these matters.
We accept that the printing difficulties may not be the responsibility or fault of the Leader of the House, but his apologies do nothing to solve the problem either. Surely the only solution would have been for this business not to have been put down for today. The backlog of printing is being reduced. We are daily receiving copies of the Official Report that were not printed during the dispute. Surely it can be a matter of only


two or three days before the missing copies of the Official Report are printed in the proper form and made available to outside bodies through the normal channels.
If the Government were concerned about operating Parliament in any way other than as a steamroller, it would not have been difficult for this business to be put on next week and for something else to have been taken today.

Mr. John Hannam: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The implications for outside bodies of the failure to provide copies of the Official Report for the last two sittings of the Committee is illustrated by the fact that two amendments which have been suggested by outside organisations have not been called for discussion. I am referring to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 which came from the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation. These bodies obtained the relevant information only during the latter part of last week. They had a meeting with the Minister on Friday and wrote to me on Monday. Consequently the amendments that would have satisfied their requirements could not be tabled until Monday. They were starred and they have not been selected. The result is that important, albeit small, amendments have not been called for debate and cannot be considered. This is an undesirable result of the lack of available information and has a direct bearing on the points of order.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest in the mining industry. If it is impossible to abandon the debate now, logic points to making a start and adjourning when we reach Clause 10, on which the problems arise but copies of the Official Report are not available.
It is extremely unsatisfactory to debate a subject when the public do not know the first thing about what is going on and when, in reality, we do not know either. It is difficult to have a copy of the typescript of the Official Report in the Chamber.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In

your statement you said that copies of the Official Report for the last two sittings of the Standing Committee were available in the Library. Are there enough copies for hon. Members to bring them into the Chamber? If not, the whole thing seems pointless because the object of having an Official Report is that it should be available for reference when a debate takes place in the Chamber.

Mr. Rost: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought to obtain a copy of the Official Report for the last two sittings from the Library and was advised that, as only two copies had been deposited there for reference by hon. Members, it was not possible to remove them.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not incredible that the Leader of the House should make such fatuous excuses and say that he had done all that he could? Surely it would have been possible——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Fell: The Leader of the House made a statement and I am querying it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had done all he could about the printing of copies of the Official Report. Surely we could have used Roneo machines to get a few copies of the Official Report run off.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must get this matter into perspective. The second half of the Bill, from Clause 9 to the end, includes some of the more contentious parts. Clause 10 deals with the ability to extract minerals other than coal and affects many industries in this country.
It has always been the custom to allow those affected by legislation to have the opportunity of studying what has been said in Parliament so that they may take action by lobbying hon. Members, or altering their businesses in some way. The individuals who have approached hon. Members on all sides of the House have not been able to read the record of what was said in Committee.
This is not merely a matter of a rather untidy administrative failure. It will be


a failure of our democratic principles if we do not allow these people to have the opportunity of making proper representations, and we cannot do that unless we have the proper documents.
It is not a question of our wanting to delay the passage of the legislation—we did not vote against it on Second Reading. It is matter of great importance to the whole nation and to the individual parts of our economy that will be affected by the Bill. They should have the opportunity of knowing what has been said, and that opportunity has so far been denied to them.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter. We had a hard-working and harmonious Committee on this Bill. We achieved a great deal. It would be out of character for the Leader of the House to try and force this issue on the House today. Both those who sat on the Committee and those who did not feel very strongly about it. I press the Leader of the House to make a statement this afternoon and to agree that we cannot proceed in this way. We are prepared to wait until these records are available. It would be unfair to the House to proceed at present.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make a proposal to the House which I hope will assist it. but first I want to say one or two things to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has met representatives of the Sand and Gravel Association and has had discussions with them. When we resume the discussion on the Bill my hon. Friend will make that clear to the House. That will dispose of some of the suggestions that have been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some suggestions have been made by Opposition Members to which my hon. Friend has a satisfactory reply. When we resume discussions the House will accept that his reply is satisfactory.
We were prepared to accept the ruling made from the Chair as to the way in which we should proceed. It would have been perfectly possible for the House to proceed in that way. However, in view of the representations that have been

made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and other hon. Members, we are prepared to withdraw the business and to ensure that it is put down on another occasion.
I was seeking to make clear to the House—and I am fully entitled to do so because of the situation and since I do not want any misunderstanding about this—that we are not proposing this action to deal with the difficulties because of our acceptance of particular allegations from the Opposition. Nor are we proposing this action because we dissent in any way from what has been said by the Chair. In order to meet the representations made by the House generally we are prepared to say that we should not proceed with this business today. We shall move to the next part of the business.

Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge what the Leader of the House has said. He has taken the right course. We are grateful to him for his co-operation and for listening to representations from hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about this matter. There is an urgent need for the Bill. It is anxiously awaited in the coalfields of Britain, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) should be aware.
Mention has been made of the Minister's response to the anxieties that have been expressed about Clauses 10 and 11. The Under-Secretary of State has been prepared to lean over backwards to inform all the interests that have approached him either directly or through Opposition Members. He has been willing to give them information.
The Opposition are acting in a mischievous and irresponsible way. They are disregarding the efforts made by my hon. Friend and they are putting at risk the necessary implementation of the Bill, which is awaited by people in the coal areas.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As has been said, the


people in the coalfields are concerned about this measure. I shall be speaking in Yorkshire on Saturday and I might have something to say about it.
When will the Bill be put on the statute book? I hope that it can be considered before the end of the week. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for it to come before us tomorrow?
Why is it that when we have a Labour Government in power we are constantly undermined by civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen who allow Departments to go unprepared on these matters? Someone in a managerial position should have said to the printers that they must first produce the Committee stage reports when they returned to work. Time and time again we witness people in the bureaucracy of our Civil Service undermining the Government in their plans to get business through.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no question of any sabotage by the Civil Service.

Mr. Skinner: That is what it looks like to me.

Mr. Foot: It might look like that, but nothing of the sort is involved.
Of course we want to proceed speedily. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) goes to his meeting at the weekend I hope that he will give an assurance that this Bill is just one of the many good measures that the Government are putting on to the statute book—and the sooner the better.
From the facts as I see them—they were drawn to my attention only at 4.40 p.m.—and from the ruling of the Chair it would have been possible for us to proceed with the discussion today. However, representations were made by many hon. Members and I have taken those into account. It is right to do that.
I hope that the House will leave the matter there. I do not believe that we shall assist the situation by having further discussion now. We shall look at the question again to see how speedily we can go forward. I hope that the House is prepared to accept that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the Lord President's decision, will an hon. Member move, "That further considera-

tion of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned"?
Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

TRANSPORT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

GRANTS TO BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD TOWARDS CERTAIN REVENUE DEFICITS

5.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'undertaking' to end of line 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to take Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'undertaking' to end and insert:
on condition that a statement of any relevant deficit shall be made annually to Parliament".

Mr. Horam: The portion of Clause 1(1) that we are now discussing reflects an amendment successfully moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). As he knows, I am by no means unsympathetic towards his underlying objective of securing more disclosure of railway finances, wherever this can be done without harm to the commercial interests of the railways.
If hon. Members have had a chance to look at the British Railways Board's annual report published last month, they will know that the board shares this objective. But, as I warned the Committee, there were a number of technical and practical objections to the hon. Member's amendment as originally drafted. I subsequently wrote to him explaining why I should be obliged at this stage to seek to reverse it. I added that I would be considering how I could assist him.
I shall be placing in the Library a copy of the principles and procedures for the calculation of compensation for


the public service obligation grant. That is what I am now holding in my hand. It will be available to hon. Members after today. It is a fairly thick document, as the House can see. It goes into the basic methods of calculating the PSO grant, which was subject to some debate in Committee. That is an indication of my willingness to help the House and, indeed, the extent to which I share the hon. Gentleman's views about providing information on British Rail finances.
In addition to that, I note that the Opposition have tabled an amendment that overcomes the technical and practical objections that I had, which I outlined to the hon. Member for Newbury. Unfortunately, I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment. I shall not go through them, because I wrote to the hon. Member and explained them. As the Opposition have tabled an amendment which overcomes those technical and practical objections, perhaps it might be best if I sat down at this point and allowed the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) to say something in support of his amendment, and if I could find that agreeable I would certainly be happy to accept it.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Under-Secretary made a passing reference to the absence of one of my hon. Friends. I think that it is quite remarkable that any of my hon. Friends or any other hon. Members are present at all at this stage, considering the precipitate speed at which the previous business was disposed of.
As the Under-Secretary said, this is an important issue. The Government were defeated on it in Committee. It is important that the House should understand the basic reason for that defeat. It was because the majority of the Committee wanted more information about British Rail's operations. The issue was the issue of public accountability, and that remains the issue today.
The Under-Secretary has said that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was defective, and he was kind enough to supply me with a copy of the letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend on 4tb May on this issue. It is with

some relief that I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is now with us in the Chamber. He enters the House at a convenient time, because we are just considering his own amendment, so I bring him up to date with progress so far.
As the Under-Secretary has said, my hon. Friend's amendment was defective. Very well: we have sought to draft an amendment that corrects the technical defects in the amendment passed by the Committee. It is an amendment that is drawn wide, but it seems to me to have the merit of allowing the maximum information to be given to the House. Whatever view we may take upon British Rail and its management, that is a requirement that I think that very few would dispute. It is a point that has been put by the Opposition as eloquently as it has been put by Labour Members. Given that the Government have now accepted our view that there is no social or economic justification for freight subsidies, the kind of amendment that we are proposing is of importance, and it will be of increasing importance.
However, the real importance of the amendment is that it gives clear notice to British Rail that more financial information will be required from British Rail—more and better information. I must say that I still remain dissatisfied with the ways that costs are apportioned between the passenger and freight business of British Rail. Nor, let me emphasise, is this in any sense a theoretical point. It affects the running of the whole railway system, because the process of the allocation of costs between passenger and freight must crucially affect the level of prices to customers and fares to passengers.
5.15 p.m.
I should like to give just one example of what I mean. As we all know, there was a big improvement in productivity in British Rail between 1964 and 1974 resulting from the fact that the staff were heavily reduced in that period—from 380,000 to 210,000. I think that the staff of British Rail and the British Rail unions have not received sufficient tribute for what was undoubtedly a very difficult time but a process in which they co-operated and for which they deserve great credit.
However, the expectation would be that because of that improvement in productivity a similar improvement would be shown in both the passenger and the freight businesses, yet, according to the Government's consultation document, the fact is that between 1964 and 1974 passenger costs rose by 300 per cent. and freight costs rose by a mere 12 per cent. In other words, massively, disproportionately and decisively, the savings went to the freight business.
Throughout the Committee stage, we were waiting for an explanation of that from the Under-Secretary. Although he has done his best to produce one or two reasons, in my view he has not answered the basic case. That is, how does he explain that massive difference between 300 per cent. and 12 per cent.? The suspicion remains that the passenger business is being blamed for too much.
There is one further point. The Government's White Paper on transport is expected next week, I believe, or if not then, the week after—at any rate, very soon, it is understood in Whitehall circles—all 30,000 words of it, which certainly suggests some kind of new record in the length of a White Paper. It is also expected, if we are to believe the Financial Times and The Observer, that it will propose that local authorities will be expected to provide support for some rural railway lines, or, at any rate, that the method of support will be changed. But, again, the point will be that if one brings the local authorities more into railway accounting, at the very least those authorities will require information on costs and how they have been arrived at, and much deeper and better information than we have at present.
Therefore, I believe that our amendment is not an end in itself but a start, a start to the process of putting British Rail accounts under more public scrutiny, a move to more openness and making them more accessible to the general public, the taxpayer and this House. I believe that that process will be helpful to the railways but, above all, I believe that it will be helpful to passengers, the customers of British Rail, and to taxpayers, who are currently making a massive contribution to the running of the railway industry.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: First, I should like to thank the

Under-Secretary for the very courteous way in which he wrote to me about the amendment that was carried in Committee and, indeed, for setting out the reasons why he and his Department felt that, as worded, it did not really stand up and was not likely to be the effective instrument that I think we on the Opposition side wished it to be.
Having said that, I should also like to welcome the fact that the Undersecretary has agreed to accept the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). In so doing, I should simply like to add one or two comments that I think will be relevant.
I had the honour to be on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is aware that the Committee recently produced a fairly formidable report on British Rail. In paragraphs 304 and 305 of the first volume the Committee goes to some length to explain the uncertainties about the way in which British Rail is financed and about the need for a better breakdown of the sums going to the various parts of the railway network.
I pay tribute to British Rail for being as concerned as we are that there is so much uncertainty about the way in which its accounts are drawn. It is interesting to note the sentence in paragraph 304 in which the Chairman of British Rail, Mr. Peter Parker,
expressed general sympathy for the idea of developing 'a clearer, cleaner way of showing what deal it is we have with society.'
It is in the light of that sort of comment that my original amendment was tabled. It is in the light of that sort of comment that the Opposition amendment has been put forward, which the Government have accepted.
I underline the point that the House is remarkably ill-equipped to scrutinise nationalised industries and their accounts. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries goes through the annual report and accounts of every one of the industries that are committed to our charge. I doubt whether many hon. Members ever bother to get from the Vote Office the records of the question and answer sessions in which we engage. That scrutiny has taken place for two years at the most.
The annual report and acounts may be delivered by the chairman of the industry to the Secretary of State, but hitherto there has been no way in which the shareholders—namely, the taxpayers—have been able to get at the actual figures that make up the report and accounts that are presented to the House, the taxpayer so often having to pay whatever deficit is outstanding.
It was with some interest that I obtained a copy of the 1976 annual report and accounts. I wondered to what extent Mr. Parker had been able to produce the transformation that is required both in the annual report and in any statement to Parliament in his short time with British Rail. The one message that comes through in his personal report is his concern that the public, society and the customer who uses British Rail should know what British Rail is doing, what services have been provided and the cost of the services, so that they may have confidence that a great organisation is being run efficiently and economically.
If that is Mr. Parker's intention, I am sure that we all wish to applaud it. However, all annual reports, whether from nationalised industries or from private companies, can give or hide as much or as little as the accountants and those who run the companies wish. For that reason I think that the additional statement to Parliament of any relevant deficit, albeit on an annual basis, will provide a new check on the way in which money is being spent and on further money that is required from the taxpayer.

Mr. Horam: I think that we are all agreed on the need for open government and the need for the House to scrutinise properly and effectively the spending of taxpayers' money. In the case of British Rail, that is quite a lot of taxpayers' money.
I welcome the views of the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) is a member. The Committee has made a valuable contribution and the Government will be studying its conclusions. I hope that we shall be able to take them into account both in the White Paper and in the separate statement that we are obliged to make, and are happy to make, on the Select Committee's general views.
The hon. Member for Newbury was not in the Chamber when I said that I shall be placing in the Library a rather thick, bulky and technical document that sets out principles and procedures for calculating the PSO grant, which is the basis for providing the taxpayers' support for British Rail's passenger services. In the words of the chairman, we make a contract with British Rail whereby it provides passenger services and we provide a certain amount of necessary support for social reasons. However, it is important that we know clearly and in some detail on what basis the sums are provided and the way in which they are calculated. The document will be in the Library and I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury will be interested to study it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'undertaking' to end and insert:
'on condition that a statement of any relevant deficit shall be made annually to Parliament.'—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments Nos. 4 and 3 fall in the same place in the Bill. It will be for the convenience of the House if I follow the tradition of practice and call first the amendment that would make the largest reduction to the sum of £45 million, which is Amendment No. 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). It will be in order to discuss with it Government Amendment No. 4. If Amendment No. 3 is defeated, I shall call Amendment No. 4 immediately thereafter for a vote.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 19, leave out '£45 million' and insert '£25 million'.
In Committee we pressed to reduce the total grant that could be paid to British Rail for its freight operations from a total of £45 million to a total of £25 million. We did so for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we did it because, as the Government now acknowledge, there is no justification for subsidising freight operations, whether they be by road or by rail.
This marks a significant agreement between the parties on this issue. The Opposition have argued that there can be no social or economic justification for the subsidy of goods being taken from one part of the country to another. We welcome the Government's acceptance of that proposition. It can hardly be claimed that freight subsidies can be justified at a time of almost unprecedented crisis in public expenditure.
It is worth pointing out that British Rail already benefits from a favourable internal accounting system. It benefits from the avoidable cost basis of accounting. Clearly, we could go into considerable detail in dealing with British Rail's accounting system, but suffice it to say that it is conceded in the Government's consultation paper, and doubtless in their forthcoming White Paper, that it is a basis of accounting that in no way is unfavourable to British Rail's freight operations.
5.30 p.m.
Thus, both in the general and in the particular, there is no reason for subsidising freight operators by road or rail, but particularly not the freight operations of British Rail. We are talking exclusively of its freight operations, not its passenger services.
We were told in Committee, although not by the Minister, that we were being unsympathetic to British Rail and that a reduction was not possible. We now see that it is possible, since the Government amendment suggests a reduction in the freight grant from £45 million to £30 million. The Government amendment relating to the National Freight Corporation proposes to reduce the freight grant from £50 million to £30 million. In other words, £35 million will have been sliced off the public expenditure originally proposed. That is a significant improvement in a time of public expenditure crisis.
We congratulate those responsible for British Rail's freight operations on reducing their deficit in the last accounts. I think that the Minister will agree that there has been an encouraging improvement in the last year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the Chair is not altogether clear about which amendment he is discussing. The amendments before the House relate

to Clause 1. I thought that I understood him to refer to the National Freight Corporation, which comes in the next group of amendments.

Mr. Fowler: I did lump the two together in a global total at one point, but clearly I will confine myself to British Rail. My general point was the undesirability of freight subsidies, both for road and for rail. I am sorry to have caused alarm by that passing remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Alarm, perhaps, but not despondency.

Mr. Fowler: I am most grateful, Sir.
As I was saying, we congratulate those responsible for the success of British Rail's freight operations. This is an encouraging start for the new Chairman, Mr. Parker. We want to see that improvement maintained and the rail freight subsidy totally elimnated by the end of this financial year. We look forward to that information in the first annual report for which Mr. Parker will have been solely responsible, and we hope that this loss will remain eliminated.
We on this side of the House take some credit for having pressed the Government in Committee and got them to reduce the totals. Depending on what the Minister says, we shall not argue about the difference between our total and his. We regard our proposal and its acceptance as a victory for common sense.

Mr. Horam: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was giving greater credit to British Rail and its employees for this reduction or to himself and his colleagues. However, it is British Rail which can be congratulated on achieving an improvement in its freight prospects.
The effect of Government Amendment No. 4 is to reduce the limit on grant payable to British Rail from £45 million to £30 million. Opposition Members tabled an amendment in Committee to reduce it to £25 million, but they withdrew the amendment in response to my undertaking to consider the amount in the light of the latest information. This amendment is the result of my doing so.
Amendment No. 4 proposes a substantial reduction—although not so substantial as Conservative Members had proposed. I note that they have again


tabled the amendment that they tabled in Committee, but when they have heard my reason for proposing a higher figure, I hope that they will again withdraw it.
It is common ground that the original limit of £45 million can reasonably be reduced. It may help the House if I explain why that figure was inserted in the first place, and then go on to account for the reduction.
The £45 million consisted of two elements: £30 million, which at the time that the Bill was published was expected to be the cash limit on grant for 1977, and £15 million to allow for payments that might have to be made in respect of previous years—1975 and 1976—after the Bill had come into effect. Such payments would then count against the provision in the Bill and not be borne on the Appropriation Acts as hitherto. They would cover release of retention moneys or accounting adjustments on completion of full audit procedures for those years. Thus we had a provision of £30 million in respect of 1977 and £15 million which might be payable after the beginning of 1977 in respect of earlier years.
The reduction of £15 million comes about as follows. First, the cash limit for freight grant for 1977 is now £25 million rather than £30 million. This reduction of £5 million results from the public expenditure measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last December, after the Bill was introduced. The new limit was announced in the White Paper on cash limits, Cmnd. 6767, published on Budget day. That is £5 million accounted for.
Second, the Bill was originally drafted to take effect as from 1st January 1977, but has been amended in Committee to take effect simply on enactment. In the meantime the Department has made one payment of £5 million to British Railways in respect of freight losses since the beginning of the year and this will not, of course, count against the total in the Bill. So it is appropriate to reduce the total in the Bill by another £5 million on that account.
Third and finally, we now have more information than we did six months ago about the likely need for grant to cover the earlier years, 1975 and 1976. We do not yet have final figures for either year,

but from audit reports now under discussion we judge that provision for earlier years can reasonably be reduced from £15 million to £10 million, that is, a further £5 million, making a total reduction of £15 million. In short, the provision for this year can be reduced from £30 million to £20 million—that is, the new cash limit less the amount already paid this year—and the provision for adjustments for previous years can be reduced from £15 million to £10 million, thus giving the revised total of £30 million.
Like the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I have every confidence in the board's ability to live within the reduced ceiling which this amendment will provide. My confidence is based on the track record of the railways, management and employees alike, in tackling the problems of the freight business over the past two years. This is not the time to look further ahead than the present year, but I am sure that the foundations for the future prosperity of the business are being well laid.
The assurances which I gave in Committee are still valid. The new figure is a ceiling, not an entitlement We shall not pay the board any more than it actually needs to cover the freight deficit, nor would it want us to. If it proves to need less than £30 million under this Bill, less it will have. But this is the figure which, on the best information available, I judge to be a safe maximum, and as such I commend Amendment No. 4 to the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Having listened to what the Under-Secretary has said, with his assurance that even the reduced figure is a ceiling and not an entitlement, I wish to accept the Government's amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 1, line 19 leave out "£45" and insert "£30".—[Mr. Horam.]

Clause 2

GRANTS TO NATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION TO MEET CASH-FLOW DEFICIT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Like the last two amendments, Government Amendment No. 6 and Amendment No. 5 fall in the


same place in the Bill, and again it would be convenient to call Amendment No. 5, which makes the largest reduction to the figure of £50 million, to be discussed with Government Amendment No. 6. If Amendment No. 5 is defeated, I shall call Government Amendment No. 6 immediately thereafter for a vote.

Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 10 leave out "£50 million" and insert "£25 million".
In Committee the Minister made some helpful comments about a possible reduction in the moneys that would be sought under the Bill for support for the National Freight Corporation. Following that assurance, we tabled this amendment. I note that the Minister has tabled Amendment No. 6 proposing a reduction from £50 million to £30 million and that for the convenience of the House we are debating the two amendments together.
I welcome the Minister's proposal, which, depending upon the information he gives us, we may well find satisfactory. However, I think it right first to look briefly at the background to the corporation's deficit which has resulted in this still substantial request for sums from Parliament. Those sums are required to sustain the deficit of a nationalised industry.
It is a substantial achievement by the Opposition to have secured a significant reduction in public expenditure. I wonder whether the Minister would have tabled his amendment, proposing a reduction of £20 million in public expenditure, but for the Opposition's pressure and argument in Committee. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be able to argue on this amendment that the reduction has resulted from improved efforts by the corporation leading to a greater reduction of losses than had been expected. I wish that that were so, but I suspect that the reduction arises far more from technical reasons than from improved performance.
We must look at a background of substantial losses by the corporation over the past three years—£15 million in 1976, £31 million in 1975 and £16 million in 1974. As we established in Committee, and from a study of the annual reports, the major part of those losses resulted from, first, the inherited rail-based companies;

secondly, the inherited liabilities of the corporation, with particular reference to the pension schemes and the obligation to make payments for free travel facilities for certain employees and past employees; and, thirdly, the substantial deficits incurred on the corporation's foreign operations. There is another amendment on that subject to be dealt with later.
We were very concerned about the substantial moneys to be paid under the Bill, which are not to be confused with the question of financial reconstruction. We can express our appreciation that the Minister has constantly reiterated that it is not his intention to use these moneys for the purposes of financial reconstruction. We emphasise that not because we wish to make life difficult for the corporation but because, although we believe it to be fundamentally important that we get the structure of the corporation right, it would be wrong for a Bill of this kind to be used to direct funds to the corporation without Parliament's being clear about its future structure.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when we may expect a statement about the NFC's future and the steps needed to reconstruct its financial structure in the way that we have been told is necessary. Perhaps we may expect it in the White Paper to be published in the next week or two, the next month or two, or whenever it emerges. Such a statement would be helpful, because this matter emphasises how unsatisfactory is the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
We know, and the Government accept, that there is fundamentally no case for subsidies of freight operations. There is no case for subsidies of freight operations on British Rail and certainly no case for them on the freight operations of a road-based company. Despite that, and the fact that there is no statutory provision for any deficits to be incurred by the NFC, over the years there has been loss after loss after loss. To fund those losses, payments have been made under the Contingencies Fund without any reference or direct application to this House. The previous Secretary of State, Mr. Anthony Crosland, said that he took a very serious view of deficits incurred for which there was no statutory authority. Despite that statement, there


have been frequent payments to British Rail.
There has been a whole period when payments have been made without specific legislative approval. Now, belatedly, we have a Bill initially asking for £50 million to bail out the NFC. I suspect that the length of time it has taken to carry through this legislation has meant that more payments have been made or are about to be made. Because we believe that that is most unsatisfactory and because we suspect that moneys have already been paid, we are most concerned to ensure that the cash limit in the clause is reduced as we have suggested. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us precisely what amounts have been paid so far by way of support to the corporation and whether any other payments are about to be made.
I said in Committee that I understood that about £25 million had already been paid before the Bill was introduced. We calculated that, with the £50 million proposed in the Bill, about £75 million in subsidy would have been paid to the NFC. The Minister proposes a reduction to £30 million, but even that would make a total of £55 million, and I suspect that other payments have been made, particularly in respect of pensions, in the interim. We are entitled to know the total cash being paid by the Government to support the corporation in the interim period.
These figures are substantial. We tend to become blasé about millions of pounds. It puts the matter in perspective when we remember that the initial grant payable to the corporation in the first five years of its existence totalled £43 million. That was the sum then thought to be needed to put the corporation on a strong financial basis. Now, a few years later, we are asked for amounts well in excess of that. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us precisely what amounts are needed.
Not all our criticisms of the Bill are criticisms of being asked to subsidise freight operations. We have constantly stressed our awareness of the problems facing the corporation. We do not in any way underestimate the difficulties that the NFC faces in endeavouring to place its operations on a sound and viable footing. We have paid tribute to the efforts by management and unions in the corpora-

tion to ensure that in future it operates competitively and on a totally commercial basis in competition with all other road-based organisations.
That has not been easy for it. During a period of recession its rail-based organisations have made considerable losses and it has had to live through a period of considerable uncertainty because of the political debate that has taken place about the future of certain of its subsidiary companies.
Again we pay tribute to the efforts of the NFC. We certainly feel that there is a strong case for the grant payable under this clause to be reduced in the monner in which we have suggested, namely, from £50 million to £25 million. But certainly we are also willing to hear what the Minister has to say in support of reducing it only to £30 million.
The money is only a temporary blood transfusion, as was made clear by the Minister on a number of occasions. As such it is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with an important nationalised industry. We hope very much that in the near future the prospects for the NFC can be put on a sound financial footing and that it can get a clear understanding of where it is heading so that management and employees can work together to ensure that it establishes itself as a strong, viable and commercially competitive haulage organisation.

Mr. Horam: I thank the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for his words, with most of which I would concur, particularly his concluding remarks when he explained that we are talking about only a temporary blood transfusion in the Bill, something which is quite different from the reconstruction which we are proposing to carry out later. I am sure that that reconstruction will be the basis of a sound company, but it is distinctly different from what we are talking about now.
The effect of the Government amendment is to reduce the limit on grant payable to the NFC from £50 million to £30 million. The background to the amendment is similar to that of the corresponding Government amendment on rail freight. The circumstances are well known to the hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. The figures in the two amendments are similar. The


Opposition have now proposed a reduction to £25 million and I am proposing one to £30 million. The reasons for making the two reductions—on rail freight and for the NFC—are different, reflecting in each case the circumstances of the organisations and the nature of the grant. We pay to the NFC a cash flow deficit grant. This is an appropriate form of grant to sustain the corporation for a period while its financial position and prospects are examined and preparations are made for any capital reconstruction which may be necessary.
If we decide on a reconstruction we can hope to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament. I can say nothing at this stage about any statement we may make, because, quite clearly, we have not decided yet when that should be made. The nature of the timetable, however, is fairly clear. There will be legislation in the next Session of Parliament dealing with the financial reconstruction of the NFC, and there will be a statement before that. I cannot say more than that at the moment.
The £50 million grant provided for in the Bill was intended to last from the beginning of 1977 until about the middle of 1978, that is, until this further legislation could be enacted. Of course, we cannot be precise either about how long the grant would last or about how long the legislation processes might take, but the intention was to work to broadly the same time scale in each case.
The reason for proposing a reduced limit is very straight forward. The Bill is no longer to run from 1st January but from enactment, and payments totalling £20 million have been made so far this year which will not count against the limit in the Bill. So it is appropriate to subtract that £20 million so as to leave the provision in the Bill at the same effective level as originally intended.
Let me reply to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the total of the grant paid to the NFC so far. It is £20 million since the beginning of 1977 and this is not covered by the Bill and is quite separate from it. The sum of £22 million was paid in 1976, and there was no payment in 1975. That makes a total so far, excluding the Bill, of £42 million.
The House will want to know why some £20 million has been made available to the corporation so far this year.

It may seem curious that such a relatively large amount of grant has been made necessary. As I explained in Committee, however, since what is being paid to the corporation is a cash flow deficit grant, it does not relate directly to the corporation's performance on revenue account. What has happened is that the corporation's actual cash payments over the first quarter of 1977 have been abnormally heavy. This is due notably to one particular payment which the corporation has made to the British Railways Board of some £10 million in settlement of a long-standing dispute over the NFC's share of the deficiencies in the board's pensions funds. Again I referred to that in Committee.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will the Minister say under what statutory authority the £10 million to which he has just referred has been paid?

Mr. Horam: Under the Appropriation Acts.
If this amount is excluded, the amount already paid is quite consistent with the expectation that a further £30 million grant should see the NFC through to the middle of 1978.
There are two further points that I should make. Once again, the £30 million is not an entitlement: it is a provision. The NFC will have to demonstrate its need for it to us before grant is paid, just as it does at present, and I think that I went into detail in Committee about how it must make its case to us.
The existing system of controls on the grant, which I have described, will continue to apply. There is no advantage in reducing this provision below what in our best judgment is necessary to see the corporation through until its finances can be put on an enduring footing. We must now make all possible progress with whatever measures are necessary to this end, and I assure hon. Members that this is what we shall do.

Mr. Gow: It is a rare event that there should be a Bill before the House of Commons which authorises public expenditure of £50 million and which is then amended on Report to authorise the expenditure of only £30 million. That sense of temporary joy which had infected all of my hon. Friends and which must have been scrutinised most closely by the


recipient of that famous letter of 15th December last, Dr. Johannes Witteveen, is short lived.
Although it might have been open to some Ministers to present this amendment as showing that the Government are saving £20 million of public money, no such attempt at deception would have been possible from the Under-Secretary. Those of us who had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee came to respect and admire, and many of us paid constant tribute to, the way in which the Minister conducted this Bill in Committee. It is entirely characteristic of him that he should explain to the House most frankly that although the Government have knocked £20 million off public expenditure by virtue of the amendment, in reality this money has been transferred to the NFC already in this calendar year, if not in this financial year. Therefore the sense of gladness and joy which had affected us, and which no doubt had spread to the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund, was short lived.
6.0 p.m.
When we are considering the allocation of funds to the National Freight Corporation, our minds no doubt go back to last year, when the hon. Member for East-bourne introduced a Bill to de-nationalise the National Freight Corporation. We are entitled to reflect that if that Bill had been passed, it would not have been necessary to debate this Bill at all, because the National Freight Corporation would have either survived or sunk upon the basis of the disciplines of the market place.
What I am very frightened about is that we are now—if we allow this Bill to go forward to Third Reading and send it to another place—propping up a nationalised industry which has been in constant breach of the Act introduced by the Labour Party in 1968. I remind the Under-Secretary of State that, under the terms of the Act introduced by his own Government, there was laid upon the National Freight Corporation, as there was laid upon the National Bus Company, an obligation to break even financially, taking one year with another. That was not an obligation laid upon the National Freight Corporation by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr.

Fowler). That was an obligation laid upon the National Freight Corporation by the precursor of the Government of which the Under-Secretary of State is a member.
Here we are debating the allocation of a further £30 million to the National Freight Corporation—to a corporation which has been in almost continuous breach of the very obligation laid upon it by the Under-Secretary of State's precursor. That is why the House is entitled to look very closely at the proposal to allocate £30 million.
There is something else. The Undersecretary of State, with bated breath, told us a few moments ago that before many months were out, and if he is still occupying that position in the Department of Transport, there would be measures laid before us for the reconstruction of the National Freight Corporation. That reconstruction is long overdue.
There ought to be engraved upon the heart of the Secretary of State for Transport the words which appeared in the 1975 annual report of the National Freight Corporation. This was how the present structure was summed up by the chairman:
It"—
that is the corporation—
has to resort to extra borrowing to service its compulsory 'dividend' on the 100 per cent, loan capital—even in years of bad trading. It has also to borrow further to pay the interest on the interest on earlier borrowings—a bad practice reminiscent of medieval usury.
That is how the chairman of the National Freight Corporation in 1975 summed up the financial structure of a nationalised industry. Who appointed the chairman of the National Freight Corporation? It was, of course, the Government.
Perhaps I may give some advice to the Under-Secretary of State. Not so many months ago, seated beside him on the Treasury Bench was a predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans)—the present noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. The noble Lord now presides over Cable and Wireless Ltd, and Cable and Wireless Ltd, almost alone among the nationalised industries, made a profit in the year 1975 in excess of £28 million. For the year 1976—although the audited accounts of Cable


and Wireless Ltd are not yet available—there was a profit substantially in excess of £28 million.
Here is a suggestion to the Undersecretary of State. Why not transfer the noble Lord from the chairmanship of Cable and Wireless Ltd to the chairmanship of the National Freight Corporation? He is only a part-time chairman of Cable and Wireless Ltd at a salary of £9,080 a year. Surely he could become the part-time acting deputy chairman of the National Freight Corporation. Perhaps then we should not have the need for another Bill, and perhaps then the reconstruction of which the Under-Secretary of State spoke would not become necessary. I offer that suggestion to the Undersecretary of State—that the profit-making Cable and Wireless chairman, who is already serving on a part-time basis, might be allowed to offer his services part time to the National Freight Corporation.
I have referred to the 1975 annual report of the National Freight Corporation. Happily, and in the nick of time, we have presented to us the 1976 annual report. "Dear Secretary of State", wrote the chairman of the National Freight Corporation on 25th April 1977. That is how he began. In the course of his report he said:
we look forward to the early implementation of changes in our financial structure ".
Those are not my words. Those words come from the chairman himself.
Earlier the chairman recorded this triumphant result. He said:
the Corporation's total deficit in 1976 was £15 million, compared with £31 million in the preceding year ".
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell the House what is his estimate of the deficit in 1977. It was £31 million in 1975 and £15 million in 1976. What will the deficit be in 1977?
From what is said later in the report we can see how great is the gulf between the world of myth and mythology in which the Government live and the real world inhabited by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and myself. We see how great is that gulf when we read this sentence in the chairman's report. This is what he says:
It is no part of the Corporation's philosophy to be subsidised ".
That is what the chairman says. How can he write this after a deficit of £31

million in 1975 and £15 million in 1976 and at a time when the Under-Secretary of State, who owns the National Freight Corporation, is introducing a Bill to give another £30 million to the National Freight Corporation? How that can be done without underlining the world of mythology created by nationalisation remains a mystery to my hon. Friends, and even to hon. Members in the Liberal Party.
The amendment would save £5 million, and I am anxious lest the enactment of this Bill will simply perpetuate the inevitable tendency of the National Freight Corporation to escape from the disciplines of the market place. The National Freight Corporation accounts for only 15 per cent, of the total freight movement in this country. It is in no sense in a monopoly situation at all. No preference is given to the National Frieght Corporation, although great preference is given to British Rail and to the National Bus Corporation. But that is not so with the NFC. In its activities it has to compete openly in the market place.
Where it does not have to compete in the market place is in the provision of capital. That is why we are debating the Bill this afternoon. It is only through Government grants—to use the Under-Secretary's words, which I wrote down—to meet a cash flow deficit that we are able to keep the NFC afloat. I say that it is no business of this House and no business of the Under-Secretary to make taxpayers' money available in grants to the NFC to subsidise a service which is in no need of subsidy.
When the Under-Secretary comes back, as he will, and asks for more money to make up the deficit this year, we shall be driven more and more to the conclusion—and we shall carry Labour Members with us—that the NFC ought to be dismembered and its assets sold and that we ought to remove this burden from the backs of the taxpayers.
Finally, when we are debating these matters the House of Commons ought to remember that it is the trustee for the money the spending of which it allocates in Bills of this kind. We shall shortly be debating another amendment, but I do not think that the Under-Secretary has made out the case for giving another £30 million to the NFC. There is no


guarantee at all that this money will be used in the public interest and there is every reason to believe that it will be swallowed up in an NFC set up with the duty to break even but which since it was set up under the Transport Act 1968 has been in almost continuous breach of the solemn statutory duty laid upon it by those who set it up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 10, leave out '50' and insert '£30'.—[Mr. Horam.]

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
'Provided that no money is paid in respect of any losses made by the National Freight Corporation's foreign operations'.
What I have to say on this amendment follows very well the admirable and cogent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The purpose of the amendment is not to rake over the ashes of the past. It is to look at what has happened with the National Freight Corporation's foreign operations over the last few years so that we may seek to learn from that experience.
It is now common ground between the parties that subsidies to freight operators are not justifiable. That is certainly our belief, and that is accepted by the Government Front Bench. That was a view first stated by the former right hon. Member for Grimsby, the late Anthony Crosland, when Secretary of State, and accepted by the present Secretary of State, doubtless with the support of his own Back Benches. Whatever may be said about home operations—and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has just said quite a lot about them—one can seriously dispute that there can be any justification for subsidising the foreign operations of the NFC.
6.15 p.m.
Yet that is precisely what we have been required to do in the past couple of years and what we did to a massive extent in 1976. In 1976 it was announced that the French operations of the NFC were to be closed down. What was remarkable about that announcement was that it was only a little over 12 months

after those very French operations had first been started. The decision had been taken by the NFC to go into France. At the beginning of 1975 the NFC announced to the Press that it had bought five companies in France with a total fleet of more than 600 vehicles. Just in a little over 12 months the NFC lost about £12 million, because that is the remarkable total which it managed to lose in that time. The only hope there is for the taxpayer for any return lies in legal action before the French courts.
In some respects what was just as bad was the way in which that loss was presented to the public by the NFC. Referring to its losses in France, the 1975 annual report of the NFC said:
It is perhaps fortunate that the experience was gained in a relatively short time scale and decisive action has been possible to contain the position.
In fact, the "decisive action" which the NFC referred to was not decisive action at all, but was the closing down of the French operations in toto.
The Secretary of State's own reaction to that loss was no better. During the Second Reading of this Bill, when challenged on the NFC's record overseas, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The NFC, although no doubt wiser as a result of its experience, should not be inhibited in the exercise of its business judgment.
The right hon. Gentleman went on:
Sometimes risks succeed and sometimes they do not, but I see no reason why the public sector should be inhibited in that way."—[Official Report, 20th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 653.]
What this convenient theory surely means is that in this case it was not the NFC which was taking the risk but the taxpayer, who not only took the risk but lost heavily as a result. It was the taxpayer who lost to the tune of £12 million.
The fact is that there is scarcely any company in the private sector road haulage industry that could sustain this scale and size of loss. Nor is it open to the private haulier, whether large or small, who gets into difficulties with a business venture, to come to the Government and ask for help.
Let us for a moment leave aside the large private road haulage companies and take the position of the 80,000 one-vehicle operators of Britain. Many of them have had very real and extreme


difficulties during the recession over the past two or three years, but no friendly Government have been on tap to offer them a helping hand; nor would they expect it. What they also would not expect is the Government to pick up the bill for the business mistakes of people who are in competition with them.
I make two further point. First, the NFC was a nationalised undertaking which went to France and sought to rationalise the petro-chemical industry in France. We can argue many things about the NFC and its role, but I do not think that anyone can seriously claim that it is part of the NFC's role to rationalise the French petro-chemical industry.
I wish to ask the Minister what he thinks would happen if a French nationalised concern were to set up in a major way in road haulage in the United Kingdom. How would the Government react—and, indeed, how would the unions react—if it were shown that a foreign industry, in order to establish itself in this country, were undercutting rates with the backing of money from a foreign Government? That was the situation as some people on the other side of the Channel saw it.
I wish to emphasise to the Minister that there has been no questioning of the collapse of the French venture. The NFC caused a great deal of bitterness by its actions among French trade unions—not surprisingly, given the scale of the collapse. Resentment at the effects of the collapse was not confined to French trade unions. It also affected British companies operating in France.
Let me quote a letter written by a firm, Price and Pearce, which conducts operations in France:
The unfortunate result of the National Freight Corporation's initiative in France is reflected in the reaction of the French Government and industry to further expansion by British companies in the transport sector. They just do not want it and so the private sector suffers from the mistakes made by its own Government-controlled bodies.
There we have the full extent of the disaster that was the result of the intervention of the NFC in France. It went even beyond the loss of public money and affected the livelihood of French trade unionists and the way in which the French Government and industry regarded other British interventions by British industry in France. That is a

serious indictment of the situation, and the Government should seriously consider this matter.
I believe that lessons should be learned from this episode. Organisations such as the NFC when operating overseas should start operations in a totally different way. Instead of beginning at the top with the acquisition of five companies and 600 vehicles they should adopt the more moderate and modest approach of the highly successful Transport Development Group in the private sector, which operates in Europe by making a small investment and then seeking to build upon it. It can make no sense to proceed in the way in which this venture took place.
The talks which I have had lead me to believe that at least that lesson has been learned in the NFC. For that reason I may not press this amendment to a vote. However, the Minister should be under no misapprehension about how seriously we regard this incident and the lessons to be drawn from it. The Government should make clear that no further public money will be spent in this way. We have already lost too much money on this venture, it has done too much damage, and there can be no question of a repetition of this sorry tale.

Mr. Horam: This is one of the series of amendments that the Opposition—unsuccessfully—tried to make to the Bill in Committee with a view to excluding various parts of the National Freight Corporation's operations from grant. I then explained in some detail why such amendments were impracticable—because they were inconsistent with the concept of a cash flow deficit grant provided in Clause 2.
Let me seek to clear up some of the questions which, raised in Committee, still trouble the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), about losses made by the NFC's European subsidiaries. It is right that we should be as clear as possible about what happened.
The cost of closing the loss-making French subsidiaries was put at £11·4 million in the 1975 annual report and accounts. This comprised £6·4 million accumulated trading losses, plus £5 million additional closure costs. This is a provisional figure and depends on, among other things, the precise outcome of the action which the NFC is now taking in


the French courts against the former owners of the Exatrans group of companies. The corporation has stated in its 1976 report, published last month, that this may well prove to be an over-pessimistic figure. The corporation will make any adjustment necessary in future accounts.
The figure of £11·4 million covers only the corporation's French subsidiaries. In addition, NFC has also disposed of a German road haulage subsidiary, Konig and Friedel, which was acquired in 1973. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman was in error when he said that the French companies were acquired in 1976. The year was 1974.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I said that it was announced in the Press at the begining of 1975. The acquisition took place at the end of 1974.

Mr. Horam: I am glad that we have cleared that matter up. I was under the impression the hon. Gentleman referred to 1976, but we have established that it happened at the end of 1974.
The German companies were acquired in 1973. The German losses were consolidated in the 1974 and 1975 accounts as £0·8 million and £1·2 million. A total provision of £13·4 million has been made in the corporation's accounts in respect of losses and closure costs of all its European subsidiaries. This provision relates mainly to liabilities to British and European banks which financed the original purchases and the companies' subsequent cash requirements.
The Government have taken the view that the NFC must be in a position to meet these liabilities, and all but about £7 million have now been paid off. The final net cash requirement of this part of NFC's business will depend on whether NFC is successful in its current court action in France.

Mr. Moate: Does the Minister agree that the figure of £13·4 million does not include the original acquisition costs of the French or German companies, and that we have not been given the figures in that respect?

Mr. Horam: Off the cuff, I think that it covers the acquisition costs. That is a total figure, although subject to the possibility that the £5 million allocation

may be less than that because we do not know what will be the result of the court action in France. The corporation between 1973 and 1974 acquired four groups of businesses on the Continent. They were the West Germany haulage concern of Konig and Friedel; a refrigerated transport company in France, later known as Tempco France; a controlling 51 per cent, share in a French forwarding business, Satco; and several tank haulage companies in France brought together as the Exatrans Group.
The hon. Gentleman, both in Committee and today, tried to suggest that the corporation sought to rationalise the French petro-chemical industry. The size of its stake in the French petro-chemical industry was not such that it could have tried to rationalise that industry. That is not the corporation's main business. Its main business is haulage, which may take in other things such as cold storage and associated matters, but it had only a small share in the French petrochemical industry. Therefore, it is an exaggeration to say that the corporation had any intention of rationalising that industry in the normal industrial meaning of the word.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Subject to correction, those words were not mine, but the actual words used in the original Press statement from the industry itself. Presumably the guidance that was given to the Press came from the NFC.

Mr. Horam: I have no idea where the guidance came from or where the Press reports originated. It is an exaggeration, given the corporation's stake in the French petro-chemical industry, which is a very large industry, to talk of rationalisation.
The three main groups of continental business subsequently failed and were disposed of, and the reasons for the failure were given in the NFC's 1975 report.
The major factor, and one which could not have been foreseen when the plans were being drawn up, was the onset of the very severe recession in Western Europe. In France alone several hundred road haulage concerns were forced out of business. The NFC has acknowledged that the situation was aggravated by local management errors and that some of the


companies it had acquired turned out to have been in a very poor state. This is the subject of the current court case affecting the Exatrans group.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is right when he says that many lessons have been learned. I concur with some of his remarks. This was a very bruising experience for all concerned. I have no doubt that the NFC, if it is ever in a position to expand in this way again, will have learned a lot, as will have other firms as well.
These sort of problems are not confined to the nationalised industries. Property speculators and property developers have had similar problems in Paris over the years. It is overly political to say that this is something to do with the nationalised industries. It is something that many companies have experienced, both in the private and public sectors, and, no doubt, they have learned their lessons.

Mr. Norman Fowler: If the Minister intends to use that analogy, will he not agree that the great difference in this case is that the taxpayer has been left to pick up the bill? He talks about the NFC learning lessons. Can we have an assurance that the Government, who play some part in the approval of such overseas investments, also have learned lessons? To put it no higher than this, I hope that they will be extremely cautious before allowing such investment to go ahead again.

Mr. Horam: That implies a view of the Government's relationship with the nationalised industries, and one which I would not necessarily accept. We do not want to interfere with the nationalised industries or their investment programmes. I make that as a general caveat, but, obviously, we would not readily allow the NFC to repeat further adventures of this kind without clear assurances. However, I would stress that one should not suppose that there is between Government—any Government—and the nationalised industries a relationship which means an interference with investment in the way the hon. Member's question implies.
Whether this is right in the general situation is a matter for debate. In this particular case, the NFC was seeking

approval for overseas investment, which it must do if the investment is substantial.

Mr. Norman Fowler: But the Government must have a view. In the light of the disaster that we have seen I hope that they will take a very cautious view in the future before permitting a repetition of that disaster. We are not asking for a general view about the investment of nationalised industries. We are asking for specific assurances about a specific case.

Mr. Horam: Certainly we would take an extremely cautious view, and I hope that if the hon. Member is ever in my position he also will take a cautious view. May I remind him that some of these adventures were undertaken when a Conservative Government were in power? I think it is best that we end on this apolitical note.
The hon. Member should get the question of the taxpayers footing the Bill into perspective. The amount of the grant made available to the NFC has been offset in its entirety by a restriction that has been imposed upon the amount of money that the corporation can invest. If one takes the public expenditure exercise on the basis that operated until last autumn, there would have been no increase at all in public expenditure as a result of the action that the Government took. Since last autumn—certainly for this current year—we have a different form of public accounting whereby investment is not inside public expenditure proper. It is distinct from public expenditure. It is worth while bearing in mind that the Government are restricting the amount of money being made available to the corporation for investment to offset the grant that the NFC needs to meet the situation in which it finds itself. This is an example of the attitude we are taking on tiding over a company with taxpayers' money.
In the light of the explanations that I have given about the breakdown of the European activities and the losses made, I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gow: Despite the urbane words of the Under-Secretary, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) will not withdraw his excellent amendment, not least because its


excellence was matched only by the excellence of the speech that he made in supporting it. The two taken together should persuade my hon. Friends that it should not be withdrawn.
The effect of Clause 2 and the amendment that we passed a moment ago is to give the Secretary of State the power to transfer £30 million to the NFC at such times and in such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit, without further recourse to Parliament. It may be argued that in this day and age a grant of £30 million from the Government to a nationalised industry is not a very large sum and that we should be thankful that it is not even larger.
The amendment moved by my hon. Friend would seek to put a limit on the unlimited powers that the Secretary of State will have if this clause is allowed to pass unamended. The restriction that the amendment seeks to impose is that no part of the £30 million should go in respect of any losses made by the NFC's foreign operations.
There is one preliminary remark that I should like to make, and it is the only slightly unkind one that I shall make about the Under-Secretary. He referred honestly and openly to the accounts of the NFC for 1975-76. The hon. Gentleman was less than frank with the House in one respect only. He did not refer the House to page 17 of the 1975 accounts. Having explained that the total losses made by the National Freight Corporation in its foreign adventures were about £11·4 million—of course, he rightly said that the figure might be a little less than that—he did not refer the House to page 17 of the 1975 accounts. There we read this sentence:
The five year plan"—
that is, the plan for the foreign operations of the NFC—
approved by Government, envisaged cautious but steady progress".
The point is that the whole of the NFC's foreign operations were carried out with the prior approval of the Government. The Minister said that there was provision in the accounts for a loss of £11·4 million, though he rightly said that the final figure might be a little less than that.
Would it not have been right and courteous for the Minister at least to have expressed a few words of apology to the House and to the taxpayer for the fact that the scheme to which he or his predecessor gave specific approval—namely, a foreign venture—resulted in a loss of £11·4 million or, possibly, slightly less? It would be salutary for the reputation of this House and for the honour of Ministers if, when something which they approved had cost the taxpayer £11 million-plus, some word of apology were given to the House.

Mr. Horam: I apologise, if, indeed, this Government ought to apologise. It was, however, the former Conservative Government who approved these matters. Therefore, we should look to the Opposition for an apology.

Mr. Gow: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. But, even supposing he is right, that will highlight something to which I shall come later.
The Minister, when commenting on the loss of £11·4 million, said that we should not worry too much about it because losses had been made by other people. That is perfectly true. But there is an important distinction between the public and the private sectors. Any man is free to choose whether to invest his money in a privately-owned industry or enterprise, and he runs the risk that the company may lose his money or may make a reasonable return and even a capital profit on it. The difficulty about the public sector is that none of us has any choice.
The whole philosophy of the Labour Party is that we should not have any choice. Labour Members believe that large sections of the nation's economic and industrial life ought to be transferred to the State. Indeed, that has been happening since that dreadful day—4th March 1974—when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) formed his Administration. Since then the British National Oil Corporation has been set up and has passed into the hands of the State. British Leyland, to the extent of 95 per cent., has passed into the hands of the State. British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders have been set up and have passed into the hands of the State.
Every time we have had a Labour Government, large areas of the nation's


industrial and commercial life have passed into the hands of the State. Therefore, the choice available to the public is diminishing. Power, wealth and decision-making have been concentrated more and more in the hands of a few fallible politicians seated upon the Treasury Bench.
That brings me to the Under-Secretary's intervention. Even supposing, although I do not believe that it was the case, that the approval to which reference is made in the 1975 accounts for these foreign operations was given by the Conservative Government, it still underlines the basic point that it ought not to be up to Governments to allow or to disallow commercial and industrial adventures of this kind. If only these operations had been carried on by a company in the private sector, there would be no complaint if the shareholders who had freely decided to invest in the company had lost some or all of their money.
6.45 p.m.
The amendment seeks to restrict and curtail the power of the Secretary of State to use taxpayers' money to bolster up or to meet the losses of the foreign operations of the NFC. Of course, the amendment would also receive the warm support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in his letter of 15th December to Dr. Witteveen, with which the Under-Secretary will be familiar, the right hon. Gentleman wrote:
an essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector".
If the amendment is accepted, it will meet the wishes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who am I to seek to drive a wedge between the Under-Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We wish to preserve total harmony between Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of having a discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I hope that he has. If he has not been able to have a discussion with his right hon. Friend, has he been on the telephone to Dr. Witteveen, because it was Dr. Witteveen to whom that letter was addressed by the Chancellor? I believe that, with those two very powerful men—the Chancellor of the Exche-

quer and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund—supporting us and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, there can be little doubt that the Government will accept the amendment.

Mr. Norman Fower: The point which concerns me most is whether Dr. Witteveen has a vote in these proceedings.
We voted on this amendment in Committee. I believe that the National Freight Corporation has taken on board the message which is implicit and explicit in the amendment. I believe that the Government have also taken it on board. Clearly, I cannot and will not take responsibility for an investment made at the end of 1974 after nine or 10 months of a Labour Government. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to force the amendment to a division. However, I hope that the NFC and Sir Daniel Pettit will take on board that an incoming Conservative Government will not approve the kind of investment that we have seen in this instance. I believe that the NFC knows that already. If not, we are underlining it.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I should not have thought that the Minister would have so little to say about his own Bill and that he would be moving it formally, but that shows one aspect of the Government. Doubtless men somewhere are now busy scribbling notes to the Minister that he will use during his intervention later in our proceedings. I see that he already has a note.

Mr. Horam: I was only too anxious to give the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler) a chance to say something. After the consideration that the Bill was given in Committee, which was unduly lengthy, I am surprised that he has anything further to say.

Mr. Fowler: When the Minister is short in his speeches, it is always a matter for rejoicing on this side. I can certainly confirm that. He has said that the time that the Bill spent in Committee was


unduly long, but I should point out that the Committee put the Bill under great and intense scrutiny for which the taxpayer will thank us even if the Minister does not. However, I do not wish to bring the Bill to an end on a note of acrimony.
A point about the Bill that should be taken on board is that it is exceptional. Both sides of the House are now united in the hope and aim that such a Bill should not be necessary again. The essential question and issue of policy here is one of justification for freight subsidy. Is there any justification for freight subsidy? Is it justifiable to subsidise not passenger movement but the movement of goods? Our emphatic view is that there is no such justification for subsidising either rail freight or—and I continue to emphasise this—road freight.
In case there is any doubt, I must also make it clear that that is the declared policy of the Government as well as our view. I hope that when the Minister intervenes he will underline that this remains his policy, because we have seen his vacillation since publication of the consultation document, and we have seen the vacillation of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State seems to be in full retreat from the doctrine contained in the consultation document, and if we are to believe the Observer the right hon. Gentleman has been concerned in an internal issue, if not conflict, over the contents of the White Paper on transport.
There is a need in the consideration of the Bill and of freight subsidies to realise that this is a central issue of public accountability. It is important that there should be public accountability and that British Rail should take on board the fact that we expect to have clear accounts provided for us. That is a matter of enormous importance. The rail industry tends to be judged by the public in passenger terms. I sought to establish this earlier—that the accounts as they are now presented tend to blame too much upon the pasenger industry. Whether or not the Government or British Rail accept that, there is an overwhelming case for saying that the accounts should be better presented than they are now.
We are coming into an era of debate on the Government's transport White

Paper. It is of the utmost importance that the maximum amount of information should be available during that debate and the railways debate that will follow. I am optimistic that that view is shared by the British Railways Board.
I wish to make a point about the National Freight Corporation. The corporation had a better year in 1976 than in 1975, but there are some fundamental matters that affect the future of the NFC and its operation. The National Carriers organisation is still losing considerable amounts of money, and there is no question but that the problem must be tackled by either the Government or the NFC.
Of course, we come again to the financial reconstruction of the NFC. In its evidence to the 1973 Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, the NFC described its plans and set out its commercial policy. It said:
None of these plans will prevail if we live in a world of subsidy, particularly if this only serves to cushion and sustain inefficient overlaps, obsolescent practices and weak management and we seek to be judged by the same criteria as private industry. We can then aim to be pacemakers in environmental and social matters through our commercial success".
We want the NFC to continue with that. We want to see the NFC aiming more to bring about those particular goals, but the goal of living in a world from which subsidy has been totally eliminated has not yet been achieved. In this Bill we wish to ensure that a step is made towards the elimination of freight subsidies in this country.
One issue that the Government will have to decide is that of Freightliners Ltd. That organisation is now run with majority control resting with the NFC. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have not always been complimentary about the NFC, or, at least, we have been critical in judging it. However, we agree on one point, and that is that it is better to keep Freightliners under the kind of devolved management that exists in NFC than to move it to British Rail. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who was a member of the Select Committee, agree with that I do not know. It seems that the Freightliner organisation has made considerable progress during the last year towards viability. That progress should


be allowed to continue, but it would be a mistake to mess about and to change the management in order to put that organisation under British Rail. If the benign smile of the Minister means that I am speaking to someone who is already converted, I am glad. I hope and urge that my views on this matter will be accepted.
I also wish to refer to the British Waterways Board, which is also the subject matter of the Bill although it has not been dealt with in great detail either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. The British Waterways Board now comes under the control of the Minister who is responsible for sport. Personally I regard that as a fate considerably worse than death, but I am also concerned about whether that Minister—who doubtless has many notable attributes—has the skill for seeking to run a major freight carrier in this country. That worries me. If the Government are going to deal with this point in the White Paper, I hope that they will take note of the fears of the board and many of its employees that a change of control here would not be in their interests.
We shall give the Bill a Third Reading on the understanding that it is an exceptional measure and that the Government will not continually be coming back seeking more help for the subsidising of freight.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gow: I fear that the words with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) closed his speech and the hopes that he expressed will not be fulfilled. It has been the constant experience of this House that we express our hope that we shall not have to provide further grants and subventions to public industries and that always those hopes are dashed.
The Transport Act 1968 laid a duty upon British Rail and the National Freight Corporation to break even, taking one year with another. In his first annual report last month Mr. Peter Parker takes the opportunity to set out the exact wording of the Act. He reminds readers of the report, as I remind the House, that British Rail has a duty
to secure that the combined revenues of the authority and of their subsidiaries taken together are not less than sufficient to meet their combined charges properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.

I reminded the House earlier that the same duty to break even was laid upon the National Freight Corporation. Yet we are debating a Bill that authorises the making of grants by the Secretary of State to British Rail and the NFC. Why? Because both have been in almost continuous breach of the duty laid upon them by Parliament.
When considering the breaches of the obligation it is relevant to bear in mind the words of Mr. Parker, who was appointed Chairman of the British Railways Board on 12th September last year and who, on 29th September, wrote in an article in The Times:
In the 29 years since nationalisation, there have been five Acts of Parliament"—
I suppose that it is six now—
as well as many changes of policy. There have been 14 Ministers of Transport and I am the seventh chairman. Railways must be one of the starkest examples of the mismatch between politics and economics in Britain since the war.
I agree with that analysis. We have seen, as we always see in the publicly owned sector, a mismatch between politics and economics.
That mismatch is perpetuated by the Bill, which authorises grants—not loans—of £60 million and increases borrowing by the British Waterways Board of £8 million. Loans made to public enterprises are not always repaid, and I view these provisions with serious misgivings.
My misgivings are not diminished by the fact that the Minister with responsibility for sport is to be in charge of the British Waterways Board. I should rather see that responsibility given to the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate. It is extraordinary that the Minister responsible for sport, who banned the Rhodesian cricketers from coming to my constituency last year, should be responsible for administering waterways. That does not fill me with confidence.
We shall be here again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be presiding when further Bills are brought before us for additional subventions to the publicly-owned industries. This will go on till we have the courage to embark on a realistic programme of de-politicising decisions that have been taken for too long by Ministers when they should have been taken by those who run the industries. I regret the necessity for the Bill


and I should have been happy to vote against the Third Reading. I predict that we shall be back before long with another similar measure.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I sum up my reactions to the Bill by describing it as a rather scrappy and unsatisfactory document. It is scrappy because it asks for more money for three nationalised transport systems without giving adequate information to those of us who have had to judge whether that money should be given. It is inadequate because of the three transport systems. At least one of them has no place in the Department of Transport, and it is hardly reasonable to expect the Under-Secretary to be able to deal effectively with its problems. I am, of course, referring to the British Waterways Board.
It is an unsatisfactory Bill because it relates to three industries, all of which are waiting to hear their fate at the hands of the Government in one or other of the White Papers that we have been expecting since May. It is an unfortunate Bill because, until we know the shape of the transport industry that the Government have in mind, it is difficult to tell whether what the Bill seeks to do is relevant to the problems that it is trying to tackle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was right to say that the concept of a subsidy for freight must be wrong. It is wrong in any commercial sense. The Bill, however, is about industries that are not run on strictly commercial terms and about industries whose accounting procedures leave such enormous gaps in the information possessed by those running them that they can make only the roughest guesses at the sort of losses being made by the parts of the industries for which the money provided in the Bill is required.
We have spoken already about the rail freight deficit and the question of working out the cost of rail freight. British Rail's 1976 annual report and accounts still do not try to do that. It must be wrong for the House to be trying to assess the value of the Bill on 1975 figures, but we have been forced into that situation.
The question of whether the National Freight Corporation should be allowed to invest overseas or run a Freightliner system involves another transport argument. I do not wish to enter into that tonight. I support the views contained in the Select Committee's report about Freightliners, but to argue that case tonight might bore my colleagues and keep the House too late.
I turn to the British Waterways Board The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has a peculiar knack of starting an inquiry into a particular industry which is the subject of a White Paper. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that we are now involved in an inquiry into the British Waterways Board. It is clear that the board is finding it difficult to know whether it will exist in the future. It cannot be sure whether the Government's intentions are that it should consist of a single entity, as at present, whether its amenity canals should be absorbed into the water authorities and the freight operation left separate, or whether the freight operation will be absorbed into the Department of Transport.
In Committee the Minister gave us a clear inkling about the board's future—I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening—and the Minister made it abundantly clear that the increased borrowing powers were to be spread over three or four years. He said that he thought that was the approximate time required from legislation this autumn until the canals could be absorbed into the water authorities. If the Minister looks at the Official Report of the Standing Committee proceedings, he will find that I have not misquoted him.
It is strange that a Minister from a Department should know so accurately the contents of a White Paper from another Department. If I were involved in the British Waterways Board, I should have every reason to feel deeply concerned about how a Minister from the Department of Transport appears to know the exact future of the British Waterways Board. That seems to show incredible insensitivity on the part of the Government. How does the Minister know so precisely how this additional money, to be provided in the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board, is to be spent?
The House makes its decisions based upon information. It is clear from the amendments we have passed this evening that the Government have either had a chance to consider the strength of the arguments presented by the Opposition in Committee that the sums of money are too great or have looked at their own sums and felt that they should be amended. Either way one does not have much confidence in the original figures or in the figures with which we are now dealing.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for accepting the official Opposition's amendment about a statement to the House if any further grants are required. The House has a right to information. I have said that before. I hope that the Minister will try to persuade the chairmen of all the nationalised industries for which he has a responsibility to make their annual reports more understandable to ordinary people. We have a responsibility for seeing that the taxpayer is not taken for a ride or forced to pay for the frivilous extravagances of nationalised industry chairmen who decide, in a flight of fancy, to invest in an undertaking which is unlikely to be successful. However, the chairmen must also realise that they have a responsibility to try to assess to profitability or otherwise of any part or sector of the industries that they are running.
I shall conclude my speech by quoting words from the British Railways Board's Annual Report and Accounts 1976. I do so because I have a great admiration for Mr. Peter Parker and because I think that he is setting a new example. On page 15, under the heading "Avoidable cost approach", the reports states:
Although the basic facility cost will have to be met by the business as a whole, or otherwise supported (e.g., Government support for rail infrastructure), this separate identification of costs unique to sectors ensures a high level of certainty in profit assessment. It is therefore well suited to businesses with a high proportion of indirect joint costs, such as the railways.
If those rules had applied some years ago I doubt whether the Bill would have been required. As it is, I add my fervent hope that we shall not have to see anything like it again.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Moate: Despite the hope of my hon. Friends that we shall not see the

like of this Bill again, on the balance of probabilities I share the expectation of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that we shall be here again. That pessimism springs from the nature of the Bill and from the fact that we are talking about the deficits of nationalised industries incurred in what should be ordinary commercial operations.
These deficits arise from the nature of the animal about which we are talking. It springs from the relationship between nationalised industries and the Government and is because nationalised industries are not subject to the same financial constraints as private enterprise. The operators of nationalised industries, whether they are from British Rail or the National Freight Corporation, know that finally, when their backs are against the wall, they can and will be bailed out by Government.
If we enter another period of recession, one can foresee, for example, that managers of British Rail or the National Freight Corporation will again make decisions not to charge commercial prices in order to keep certain sections of their businesses going. They would do that because they know that they will be bailed out by the Government. I cannot see any way out of that situation. That is why we are here today talking about subsidies.
The Government have reduced subsidies to about £60 million. That is only part of the story which involves the expenditure of £200 million in freight subsidies in the last three years. The Government do not believe in subsidising freight. On that there is common ground between the Government and the Opposition. We all agreed that there is no case for subsidising freight.
The present Secretary of State is determined that freight subsidies should be phased out. He has our total support. It has never been Parliament's wish that freight should be subsidised, and yet here we are spending £200 million of taxpayers' money on subsidising freight operations over a three-year period. If we consider that in the language of priorities, which we understand is the language of Socialism, we must consider what that £200 million could have been better spent on. Let us think of the hospitals that it would have built, or the


overseas aid towards which it could have been directed. However, for three years these two industries, despite the total lack of any statutory provision, have run up major losses to the tune of nearly £200 million.
I fear that as long as we have this relationship between the State and major commercial activities there will always be the danger of their lapsing once again into unfortunate practices, and coming back again to the Government and Parliament for more money, in the certain knowledge that they will be bailed out at the end. Therefore, I regret that I have to share the pessimistic approach rather than the optimistic approach expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
My hon. Friend—here I agree totally with him—described the Bill as scrappy and inadequate. He cited as one example of that the fact that at the tail end of the Bill, almost as an afterthought, it was decided to include the British Waterways Board. I personally think that that was almost offensive to that board. It is rather indicative of the fact that the board seems to have been treated as the poor relation over many years by Government Departments.
As the board is a Department of the Environment responsibility, it seems inappropriate that it should be in a Transport Bill. It seems even more inappropriate that it should be under the control, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) pointed out, of the Minister responsible for sport. Now we understand that it is proposed by the Government—I hope that this intention will not be carried into effect—that it should be transferred to the proposed National Water Authority.
The present Minister responsible for sport is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I presume that the Minister in charge of the water authority will be the Minister for drought—also the right hon. Member for Small Heath. Therefore, while it would be quite inappropriate for a freight operation—I believe the lifeblood of the canals to be their freight activities—to be submerged in a National Water Authority, there is little hope for the board in any change of Minister, because

from sport to drought does not offer much hope for the British Waterways Board, which has made a strong case for remaining an independent and viable organisation.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when he winds up the debate, as there is genuine confusion on this point, whether the future of the British Waterways Board is to be dealt with in the water White Paper, which I believe we are awaiting, or in the transport White Paper, which I understand we are also awaiting. Perhaps he might even honour us with the date when we might expect the transport White Paper to be approved by the Cabinet and published for the world to see at long last.
I emphasise again that the Bill is the culmination of nearly £200 million of freight subsidies. I only wish that that were the end of the losses. If hon. Members dispute the figure of £200 million, they will recall that that was the figure confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), on Second Reading.
One thing that we gleaned in Committee was certain information about the allocation of costs by British Rail. I should like to dwell on that for a moment. I think that there has been universal agreement that there should be a greater breakdown of British Rail's costs and greater publication of them. If the Government are to move towards a situation in which more and more sectors of British Rail have to give information about their true costs—as the Government have declared they intend—be it Inter-City or commuter or other services, we must have better figures so that the public can judge the true costs.
It is my belief that at present the concealment of the true costs on the freight operations is working to the detriment of the commuter. Taking the 1975 figures, we know that track and signalling costs of British Rail amounted to well over £300 million. The proportion of revenue that came from freight was nearly 50 per cent. of total British Rail revenue, yet the Minister told us—this was new information that we have not had previously in the accounts—that only £50 million of those track and signalling costs was being allocated to freight. Some 20


per cent. was being borne by freight, which produced nearly 50 per cent. of the revenue. Therefore, there is undoubtedly a very substantial hidden subsidy.
In future, the true costs should be borne by freight, or we should move towards such a situation, or at least the accounts should publish the actual breakdown of track and signalling costs between freight and passenger services.
We also learned something regarding certain segments of the freight operations, particularly steel carryings and coal carryings. Again, we are not to be told whether they are in profit or in loss. However, they represent such a substantial proportion of British Rail's earnings that it can only be helpful for the public to know whether those carryings for other nationalised industries are being borne at a profit or a loss.

Mr. Hairy Cowans: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that, whether or not freight was run, a large amount of the track would still have to be there? Would he not also concede that it is right and proper that a higher proportion of the track costs should go on the passenger side due to the safety factors that must exist on that side but not necessarily on the freight side?

Mr. Moate: There is no disagreement between us on that. It is a question of what is a fair percentage. I do not think that the Government, even in their consultation document, have attempted to disguise the fact that there was a hidden subsidy for freight. Even allowing for the fact that higher costs have to be borne by the more sophisticated needs of the passenger sector, the 20 per cent.—£50 million—share in 1975 was certainly not a fair proportion of track and signalling costs for freight. If we are to reach a situation in which the commuter will have to be faced with higher fares to meet his true costs, he is entitled to say that freight should carry its true costs and that the figures should be published in full.
I turn briefly to the question of the National Freight Corporation, and I link this to the other point that I have made. In the long term, I cannot see how the relationship between the Government and the NFC, or between the Govern-

ment and any nationalised industry, can ultimately result in a business being able to operate subject to the same disciplines and financial constraints as a private enterprise concern.
The example that I use to illustrate the point is that of the foreign operations of the NFC, covered so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. It may be true that future Governments will be much more cautious, and that if they are approached by the NFC or any other body to take risks abroad they will be much more cautious. However, I cannot really believe that the NFC or any other body can operate truly with freedom and a sense of responsibility, risking its own cash, as a private entrepreneur would, when it knows that the Government are breathing down the neck of the board. Those bodies cannot take the right commercial decision when they go in, and they probably would not take the right commercial decision when they were forced to come out after making losses.
Here we are faced with very substantial losses in the NFC area, arising partly from road-based operations, losses which other private enterprise concerns could not possibly have sustained over this period, yet we have a Labour Party that has a commitment to a greater extension of nationalisation in the road haulage industry. That commitment was contained in its manifesto. We have not had a formal repudiation of it from the Minister, although he may tell us that today and actually clear away that bit of debris and say finally that the Labour Party has abandoned its belief that there ought to be further nationalisation of the road haulage industry.
However, faced with this record in the one area in which we have nationalised road haulage, in which we cannot really control loss-making situations, the Labour Party is still committed to a further extension of nationalisation.
It seems to me that we are coming to the end of a rather sad and sorry story. The taxpayer will be poorer to the tune of some £200 million as a result of the way in which the present Government, for three and a half years, have managed the freight operations in the State sector. By and large, that £200 million has not been the subject of specific parliamentary approval. It has


been paid out under other parliamentary means, under the Contingencies Fund or the Appropriation Acts. I do not think that anyone would regard that as satisfactory.
Earlier we were told that there was some urgency because the National Freight Corporation in particular was running short of money. Surely it is an indictment of the Government's management of their own programme that it is now five months since Second Reading. We spent only three weeks in Committee, and yet five months later the Bill has not even gone to another place.
After three years of mismanagement we have witnessed a dismal performance in respect of parliamentary business management, and the taxpayer is £200 million the poorer. We have decided not to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. That being so, the Government may express their gratitude for our assistance. All in all, it is a rather sad and sorry story.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Horam: A number of hon. Members have expressed their desire that we should not see the like of this Bill again. I suspect that that may be a rather rash expression. It would be especially rash if a Conservative Government were forced to introduce such a measure despite vehement opposition from their Back Benchers and, possibly, even the resignation from such a Government of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I know how principled the hon. Gentleman is on these issues and I acknowledge the strength of his feelings.
Surely no man could eat such a vast volume of words, witty though some of those words have been, including several references to Dr. Witteveen and various others. Even to attempt to eat such a vast volume would cause the most acute indigestion. If such a stage were reached, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be compelled to resign. He could cultivate his garden in Eastbourne and look askance at, and perhaps make some critical speeches of, a Conservative Government. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman will never have the opportunity to criticise a Conservative Government. I profoundly share the hope that has been expressed by many that we do not see the like of this sort of Bill again.
I shall reply briefly to the debate and answer the questions put by the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. McNairWilson) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about the future of the British Waterways Board. In essence, the board will not be a subject for the transport White Paper. It is within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who has responsibilities for sport. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend's White Paper is produced there will be considerable mention in it of the British Waterways Board.
The present division of responsibilities makes a great deal of sense. More revenue is gained by the board from selling water than from its commercial cargocarrying activities on its canals. Apart from all other considerations, if a strictly economic criterion is taken it is clear that the board should be within a water authority and under the same general supervision as the inland waterways, whether they be inland rivers or canals.
If Opposition Members consider these matters, I am sure they will concede that there is a great deal of rational common sense behind the division that has been made. I am certainly not anxious to add the British Waterways Board to my responsibilities. I have quite enough to do with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre and various other matters.
I thought that I was diplomatically vague about the provision for the British Waterways Board over the next three or four years. I did not intend to be precise. Opposition Members would be flattering me if it were suggested that I have extensive knowledge of its future provision and over how many years it will extend. I was stating what I knew to be the case. My knowledge is not as extensive as has been implied. Indeed, it is not my responsibility. I cannot go very much further than I was prepared to go in Committee.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that there is no intention for the Department of Transport to take over the commercial side of the British Waterways Board?

Mr. Horam: There is no such intention. I am happy with the present allocation of responsibilities, as I have no doubt is my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment.


If that were not so, my right hon. Friend would not have laboured so long and lovingly on the water White Paper, which I presume my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be producing shortly.
There has been general consensus on two matters. First, it is accepted that there is no justification for freight subsidies. Secondly, it is accepted that it is extremely important that any Government—I hope that this will apply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) if he ever assumes Government responsibilities—take a stringent view of public accountability——

Mr. Norman Fowler: Not "if": "when".

Mr. Horam: That is a debatable matter. Perhaps we should not debate it at this stage. I hope that if the Conservative Party is ever returned to Government again, the Government who are formed will follow up their spokesmen's words in Committee and on Report. I hope that they will demonstrate that they mean what they say about public accountability. I have meant what I have said. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Newbury nodding in agreement.
I hope it is accepted that I took a reasonably informative posture in Committee. We are now in possession of a number of facts that previously were not generally known. I intend to continue to require nationalised industries to be as forthcoming as possible in the interests of proper House of Commons supervision of taxpayers' money, which is extremely important in itself, quite apart from the need for a compiling of general information that will be of interest to commuters and others who will be using British Rail services.
I take exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about the concealment of true costs and hidden subsidies. We are all agreed that we want a proper allocation of costs. It is one thing to have sensible information provided for the general benefit of the public and quite another thing to have systems of accounting and a consideration of profits that make management

sense. The justification for the avoidable cost basis of accounting in respect of freight is that it makes management sense. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newbury quoted from the report of the British Railways Board which justifies that form of accounting.
I am sure that if Opposition hon. Members consider it further they will see the sense of that form of accounting. It has been evolving sensibly over a number of years. If ever they come into Government, I am sure that they will not want to change the accounting system when so much progress has been made. We do not necessarily make progress by continually changing the basis of accounting. We make progress by trying to improve a sensible system.
The present system may not be perfect and it may not meet all needs. It is not as revealing as it might be in some respects. However, it makes good management sense. We should take that point of view very seriously. The hon. Member for Faversham should drop talking about the concealment of true costs and hidden subsidies. I understand what he is trying to get at, but I do not think that he is on the right wicket.

Mr. Moate: Does not the Minister agree that his own consultation paper used the phrase "a hidden subsidy"? That was my simple point—that, if there is a hidden subsidy, almost by definition it benefits the freight operations by an exceptionally favourable interpretation of an accounting procedure which in other respects may be sensible.

Mr. Horam: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concedes that it may in other respects be sensible. That is my point.
I should like to finish on agreements, not disagreements. We agree about the lack of justification for a freight subsidy and on the rigour with which we should approach these topics and the need for adequate public accountability. The discussions on the Bill have certainly demonstrated the importance of both those points.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS

CUSTOMS DUTIES AND AGRICULTURAL LEVIES

7.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I beg to move,
That provision may be made for giving effect to Community obligations requiring customs duties or agricultural levies to be charged in certain circumstances on goods which have been imported into the United Kingdom from another member State.
This Ways and Means Resolution stems from the changes in the Community rules due to take place on 1st July. At present if goods are brought into a Community country for processing and re-export and are then brought into the United Kingdom, duty is charged upon the goods themselves. After 1st July duty will be chargeable only on the goods which formed the basis of the processing and re-export, which in most cases will be the raw material. It will be chargeable generally on the raw material brought into the first Community country for processing.
We have to make these changes in our collection arrangements to take account of changes in the Community rules. This resolution will become necessary before a clause can be introduced into the Finance Bill, which will in due course be debated in the House.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I regard the Minister's statement as totally inadequate. It was clear to any observer from the comings and goings on the Government Front Bench that they hoped to get this motion on the nod. The Minister was sent for and was briefed——

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Because of the complex organisation of the House, I was in a Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, where an amendment in which I was particularly interested was due for discussion. I therefore had the problem, which the hon. Gentleman will understand, of trying to be in two places at once.

Mr. Marten: I understand that, but if the Minister had been here, he would have understood the other side of the story, which is that the Government hoped

to get this resolution on the nod. He may have been doing his duty elsewhere, but the Government were relying simply on the nod of a Whip for this little item. That is a poor way to conduct business and the Minister's explanation is totally inadequate.
What is the "provision" which has to be made? Is it a sum of money or a power? There may be papers to back up this resolution, but I have not been able to trace any, so we are in the dark about its meaning. What are the "Community obligations" which are referred to? We are to impose duties on imported goods from member States, which I thought was contrary to the Community spirit.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Mr. Robert Sheldon indicated dissent.

Mr. Marten: The Minister is shaking his head to all the questions that I am asking. Perhaps he would like to intervene and explain. However, apparently he would not like to do so.
What are the "certain circumstances" in which these duties have to be charged? The resolution refers to goods "which have been imported". Does that mean goods which are to be imported in future or goods which were imported in the past? We need much more explanation.
I repeat that it is poor behaviour to try to sneak this matter through—it might have come up much later in the evening—without prior information and explanation to hon. Members.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I feel compelled to join the protest of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). This House is often criticised for its incapacity to deal properly with Community business. That is one of our problems in our relations with the Community and this is a classic example of our difficulties.
This resolution appeared on the Order Paper without notice. None of us knew that it was to be moved until we saw today's Order Paper. Most of our Common Market business here takes place at dead of night, when only a handful of hon. Members take part. That unfortunate cynicism is created by this sort of manoeuvre—and "manoeuvre" is the only possible description of slipping on the Order Paper in this way a motion


which may be important, with no explanatory documents available beforehand.
This appears to be a significant motion. What are the "certain circumstances" in which these obligations could be brought into force?
I protest about the manner in which the resolution has been brought before us. The Minister has explained the need for it, which does not seem pressing. In view of the protests made tonight—they have also been made privately to me by colleagues—it would be appropriate to withdraw it and reintroduce it when we have had time to consider it. Perhaps we could then have some background papers on the significance of the motion.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: It was not easy to follow the Minister's explanation without some opportunity for closer study. The method of the introduction of the motion seems rather casual and the wording requires more elucidation. It may not be a matter of great importance, but that is for the House to judge and we cannot do so without more information.
Expressed as it is, the motion is wide open to many interpretations. What are the "Community obligations" for which provision may be made? Presumably such obligations must be evident in some form and there must be some regulations or directives for the House to see. But the motion makes no reference to any such documents.
I agree that it would be better to withdraw the resolution until we have the extra evidence which is necessary. Then the House can judge whether the resolution is as innocuous as the Minister seemed to imply or whether it has significant implications. If it cannot be withdrawn, perhaps the Minister will give us a lengthier explanation of what it involves.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am happy to respond. I had assumed that the House wanted only an indication of the purpose of the motion, knowing full well that if it was passed it would become a clause in the Finance Bill, which will have proper scrutiny on Second Reading, detailed discussion in Standing Committee upstairs, and subsequently, if required, on the Floor of the House. A Ways and

Means resolution is to pave the way for that kind of examination, but I am delighted to respond to the requests for a fuller explanation.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked why this provision needed to be made. The reason is that without it after 1st July there would no longer be power to collect the duty. Because of Directives 69/73 and 75/681, implemented by the Inward Processing Relief Regulations 1977, which are currently before the House and are to take effect from 1st July, there would be a gap of which importers could make use.
At present, anybody who imports goods into this country for processing and re-export and then fails to re-export them is liable to the import duty on those goods. Raw materials might be brought into a member country of the Community for processing and re-export and subsequently come to this country in their processed form—perhaps because of a cancelled order—instead of being reexported outside the Community. Let us take pencils as an example. The wood for their manufacture might go to Germany——

Mr. Marten: Where from?

Mr. Sheldon: From a country outside the Community. If it came from inside the Community no duty would be payable. If it is made clear to the authorities in Germany that the goods are for processing and re-export, the duty is waived temporarily. If the pencils are diverted to the United Kingdom, at present we charge duty upon them as they come into this country. After 1st July we shall charge only the duty on the wood that went to Germany in the first place. We do that because Germany did not charge the duty, as the wood was expected to be processed and re-exported. The new clause to the Finance Bill will close the gap. We shall be able to charge the United Kingdom importer on the value of the wood and obtain the duty from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) asked me why there was a pressing need. The first reason is the date. Secondly, the Finance Bill is in Committee and is expected to reach new clauses next week. It would be very convenient if the matter could be


thoroughly examined in Committee rather than on Report.
The provision is not earth-shattering, but there is a gap that should be closed.

Mr. Moate: What is the significance of 1st July? Where does that date come from in this context?
The motion also refers to agricultural levies. May we assume that if the gap existed from 1st July levies would not be applied on certain agricultural commodities and therefore the consumer might buy foodstuffs a little cheaper?

Mr. Sheldon: The date comes from the directives that I mentioned. We are concerned not to lose a power that we now possess and that we shall lose if we do not make these changes.

Mr. Marten: When the right hon. Gentleman collects the duty on the pencils that he gave as an example, who receives the duty? Does it go to the British Treasury or the Community? Secondly, why do we have to tax food unnecessarily? We need a thorough explanation of that.

Mr. Madden: To avoid further inconvenience, may I add to the list of questions? Is this a deficiency that the United Kingdom alone must make good by 1st July, or is it one that other member States of the Community are all required to make good to enable them to collect duties from 1st July in the way my right hon. Friend has described?

Mr. Sheldon: The answer to the first question is that this is part of the common external tariff. The resolution will cover duties payable on the importation of goods brought into the Community as a whole from countries outside. The money goes to the Community. It is available in the same way as all common external tariffs are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby is right to assume that other countries will be in the same position as we are, but I cannot say whether their legislation already meets the point of the directives. We just noted that there was a gap in our legislation because of our way of dealing with the matter. All countries will have to make provision of the same kind as a result of the directives.

Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman answered my first question, for

which I am grateful, but will he also answer the second? Can he give an example of how the provision works with agricultural products and say why we have to tax food in this way? I should have thought that this was an excellent opportunity not to tax food.

Mr. Sheldon: A number of articles that come into this country are due to be taxed because of our own import duties. We are now concerned with articles whose point of importation is a country other than the United Kingdom and which subsequently come here. The agricultural levies are Community duties applying in the same way as duties on the imported wood that I cited as an example.

Mr. Marten: Maybe they are Community duties, but why do we in Britain have to collect them? Why cannot we just not collect them and therefore make the food cheaper?

Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman seeks to change the basis of our Community policies in these matters, it is up to him to make that claim, but it does not arise under the resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That provision may be made for giving effect to Community obligations requiring customs duties or agricultural levies to be charged in certain circumstances on goods which have been imported into the United Kingdom from another member State.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

DEAF PERSONS (NOTTINGHAMSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: Whenever in the past I have been granted the opportunity to raise a matter on the Adjournment it has always been very late at night or early in the morning. I am very glad that on this occasion we have reached the Adjournment early and I hope that that augurs well for what I shall propose and that my hon. Friend finishing his tour of duty earlier tonight than he might otherwise have thought,


will look more kindly at the points I shall put to him.
Deafness is affliction little understood by the public in general. It is, therefore, a disability which attracts little public sympathy, and because it attracts little public sympathy little pressure is exerted upon the powers that be for better services of all kinds for those who suffer hearing impairment.
I wish tonight to point to the need for these better services. In my constituency is the Ewing School for the Deaf, and each time I have visited it I have been deeply moved by the wonderful rapport which exists between teachers and pupils. Truly, the teachers of the deaf are in a special category, and I am grateful for this brief opportunity to pay tribute to them.
But lest my hon. Friend the Minister should feel that I am straying into areas not his concern let me point out that my contact with this particular school has led me on to look into a number of problems associated with the deaf over the years. Because organisations catering for the deaf apparently became aware of my growing interest, several parents of deaf children in Nottinghamshire approached me last year to express their concern about the educational services for the deaf.
It would have been easy to dismiss these complaints, somewhat vague and indefinite as they were, as just emotional expressions of the understandable desire of parents for the best possible service for their children. But I felt that the complaints were justified. Parents felt that all was not well, that the best use of what was available was not being made, and that there were differences in treatment for children in various parts of the county after local government reorganisation. All this led me to the belief that there was no common philosophy operating throughout Nottinghamshire in educational services for hearing-impaired children, and that there was a need for a uniform approach.
I asked for, and was granted last June, a meeting with various officials concerned with the teaching of the deaf in Nottinghamshire, and at that meeting there appeared to be agreement on the need for a unified comprehensive educational service for hearing-impaired children. Al-

though I have corresponded with the county director of education since that meeting a year ago, I have had no indication yet of the outcome of the county education committee's consideration of the matter. Indeed, in March this year the director of education told me that the offices of his department were so grossly overworked that it had not been possible for a paper to be prepared for the consideration of the education committee.
I have given these details not because my hon. Friend has any responsibility for education but in order to point out that in education there is no adequate uniform service for hearing-impaired children, and in order to go on from there to show that the inadequacies in the education service are linked with similar inadequacies in other services.
Increasingly I have come to realise that there is a need for better supportive services for the deaf over a wide range, because hearing impairment cripples its victims socially, psychologically and vocationally. There are varying degrees of hearing impairment and there are a number of causes of it, not all of them known, so that there is also a need for more and more research into the causes of the disability and its treatment.
From what I have gathered from my reading on the subject I understand that approximately one in every thousand very young children has a severe impairment of hearing. A further two per thousand have a lesser degree of hearing loss. In spite of the increasing knowledge of the causes of hearing-impairment in children, the numbers of schoolchildren with defective hearing are increasing, I understand. It would seem, therefore, that unless we devote more attention to this problem we are destined to have ever larger numbers of people who will not be able to realise their full potential because of their hearing handicap, and who will therefore fail fully to enrich their lives and to make a full contribution to their community's prosperity and well-being. Already statistics suggest that there are almost 2 million adults in Great Britain with a significant hearing loss.
The figures I have given on hearing difficulties for both adults and the child population indicate the size of the problem. In spite of the size of that problem, it has come as a shock to me to find


that not all children are screened as to their hearing capability at an early age, as they should be, and that of those who are screened some have hearing defects which are not detected until a later stage, because not all health visitors are adequately trained to make expert diagnoses.
That is a deplorable state of affairs. As one of the reports issued by a committee of the Department of Health and Social Security states:
Delay in diagnosing any degree of hearing impairment in young children is of grave significance, for it can have permanent and far-reaching consequences on the learning of language, and it is likely to cause impairment of intellectual, emotional and social development. Prompt detection is essential if the best use is to be made of the early years. which are crucial for the child's development of language and speech. The infant under a year old is effectively laying the foundation, both auditory and in control of skilled movement, for speech to begin to develop soon after the first birthday, and it is therefore essential to avoid delay in overcoming any remediable handicap.
Right at the outset of a child's life, then, we have defects in our services which cause hearing impairment in some children to remain unsuspected and undetected for so long a period that full retrieval of the consequent loss in the child's development is impossible.
It is, however, not only at the beginning of a child's life that our services have been inadequate but at various other stages as well. As I began to become increasingly aware of this, I found that the North Nottingham Community Health Council was giving close study to the problem, as were the other community health councils in Nottinghamshire. Between them they have recently produced a working party report on the services to those who suffer from hearing loss.
Still more recently, I have discovered also that the Advisory Committee of the Department of Health and Social Security has been considering all these matters Therefore, there is hope for the future that in this concentration of attention upon the gaps in our service for the deaf we shall find the necessary answers.
What all these investigations point to is the necessity of there being total child population screening at an early age, expert early diagnosis of hearing impairment, and speedy reference to specialists in appropriate cases. An adequate sup-

ply of hearing aids is another must. I have discussed in the House in the past the delays in the supply of hearing aids, and there obviously must be a minimum of delay between prescription of the correct hearing aid and its supply. There must also be readily available maintenance of hearing aids, including the changed moulds necessitated by the fact that children's ears grow rapidly.
The more one studies the problem of deafness, the more one realise that there must be a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach to it if we are to enable our children and our adult citizens to reach their full potential in life. Since my own thoughts began to point me in that direction I have found that the community health councils in Nottinghamshire and the Advisory Committee of the DHSS share the view that there should be available for centres of population, preferably under one roof, multi-disciplinary assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation facilities. These centres should be staffed with such specialists as medical audiologists, otologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, paediatricians, audiometry technicians, and other specialists necessary to complete such a comprehensive team.
Through that centralised provision there should be a continuing and complementary relationship with others, such as social workers, the teachers of the deaf, hearing therapists, health visitors, resettlement officers and so on. Parents of the deaf, inevitably so very emotionally involved with the problems of their children, need to know clearly to whom to turn for advice on how best they may help their children's development. Such a multi-disciplinary unit would provide that kind of support.
For hearing-impaired adults there should be made available through such a multi-disciplinary unit the kind of rehabilitation and support facilities which will ensure that their handicap does not drive them into such depths of loneliness, isolation and despair that they give up all hope of being able effectively to cope with the problems of their special life as deaf people. The easily accessible range of support and guidance which can be obtained for hearing-impaired adults will assist them to build up sufficient morale and confidence to face problems which


have previously seemed to them to be insurmountable. Unfortunately, there can be few parts of the country where such comprehensive services for the deaf exist. We must aim to supply those comprehensive multi-disciplinary services as soon as possible.
Some time ago I found that there was to be set up a National Institute of Hearing Research, and I asked that it be sited in Nottingham. I am very glad to say that it is now sited there. I believe that this is the first of this kind of institution in the world, and from this we should gain very much, particularly as it is headed by a very distinguished director, Professor Mark Haggard. The fact that we have this institute in Nottingham means that we have the ideal opportunity there to bring into being those multi-disciplinary facilities which I have mentioned and to bring them into close association with the National Institute of Hearing Research.
If that were done we should have in Nottingham something which might be described as a pilot scheme, which would provide the answers to many problems, and valuable guidance for dealing adequately on a national basis with the scourge of deafness. Such a comprehensive unit may not have been planned on the Nottingham Medical School site, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he will give favourable consideration to my suggestion.
In the whole time that he has been in this House my hon. Friend has shown himself to be passionately and intensely interested in the problems of the disabled. He has campaigned for many years for improvements in the services to the disabled. In his present position he has achieved very much. If he can now add to those achievements the setting up of this scheme that I have suggested as a possibility, I feel sure that he will add a great deal of lustre to the crown which he wears as the Minister responsible for the disabled.

8.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) for having initiated this debate. Moreover, I congratulate him on the obvious sincerity of his concern

to help deaf people, and even more particularly deaf children. He spoke not only sincerely but powerfully and movingly. He will readily appreciate that I entirely share his desire for further improvement in both the welfare and general quality of life of deaf people.
As our consultative document on priorities for health and personal social services in England makes plain, it is the Government's view that the needs of hearing-impaired people command a high priority, and justly so. We have made this clear on many occasions, but this debate provides an opportunity to reiterate this once again in the House, and I gladly do so now.
Before referring to Nottinghamshire itself, I should like to say something about the ways in which we have taken action generally to improve provision for deaf people and about our future plans. We make no claim to having achieved dramatic solutions to the difficult problems that face us, but, given the daunting economic situation that we have had to face, we have made very fair progress to date.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of this has been the progress made in providing the new behind-the-ear hearing aid, which we are making available to hearing-impaired people on a priority basis. We are at present considering how this convenient and cosmetically attractive aid, of which some 200,000 have already been issued, can be provided for everyone for whom it is suitable. I should like to emphasise that the aid will not suit everyone suffering from a hearing loss, especially those with severe deafness, but it does benefit people with a moderate degree of deafness.
I am fully aware that there is a demand for a more powerful aid of this kind to be provided under the National Health Service, but it is in the language of priorities that I must speak tonight and we are concentrating first on improving the present level of service and expertise. The present range of aids enables patients to exercise a choice, however, not only between a body-worn and a behind-the-ear aid, but between two models of behind-the-ear aid. I believe the fact that patients are given the aid of their choice will have a significant effect on the degree to which aids are used. We shall, of


course, proceed as quickly as we can to make the new aid available to both existing and new patients. I hope to be able to announce the arrangements for this in the near future.
In anticipation of all the additional work that will be placed in hearing aid centres by the quickening change from body-worn to behind-the-ear aids, the health authorities have been encouraged to recruit additional technicians and to improve facilities. To help authorities with the consequent additional expenditure, £500,000 from special funds was made available from 1974—of which the Trent Regional Health Authority was allocated £85,000—and one effect of this has been a significant increase in the number of technical staff in hearing aid centres and audiology departments generally.
In the period from 1971 to 1975—the figures for 1976 are still awaited—the number of technicians under training in England and Wales more than trebled, while the number who had successfully completed their training increased by nearly 50 per cent. These figures show clearly that, in taking on and training more staff, the health authorities are making meaningful efforts to improve the quality of their audiology services. There is no doubt that the very encouraging progress made in the five-year hearing aid programme for phasing-in the new aid has been due largely to the hard work and good will of staff at hearing aid centres. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the service that they give.
Although the introduction of the new hearing aid represents a substantial commitment on the part of the Government and the NHS, I regard it only as the starting point from which a number of new measures will flow. I have recently received from my Advisory Committee on Services for Hearing Impaired People three reports concerning specific areas of service. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Library. They cover certain aspects of services for children and adults and are at present the subject of consultations with the health authorities and with various professional and voluntary bodies.
Thus it is too early to forecast the extent to which it will be feasible and

desirable to put their recommendations into effect. We shall need to look very carefully, of course, at the order of priority for determining the way in which the audiology services will develop in the years ahead. I have, however, already announced that, so far as the report on rehabilitation is concerned, I am prepared to make available limited funds to assist in the establishment of a new class of worker in the National Health Service to be known as a "hearing therapist".
For far too long hearing-aid users have not been able to receive the more advanced degree of follow-up necessary for those with a severe hearing loss or with special difficulties. We regard the hearing therapist as an essential part of a comprehensive service, who will help deafened adults to improve their communication skills and act as a co-ordinator of other means of help.
Another aspect of services that concerns me at the moment—and one on which my Advisory Committee has also made recommendations—is the screening of young children for suspected hearing defects. My hon. Friend referred to this important matter when opening the debate. If a condition cannot be prevented, it is of paramount importance that it should be detected at the earliest possible moment. It is especially important that a hearing loss should be diagnosed at a very early age, for failure to do so can have grave and far-reaching consequences on the acquisition of language. We shall be studying comments on this report alongside the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Child Health Services—the Court Report.
I shall be saying something more about this later in the context of Nottingham, but I wish to emphasise now that I have been encouraged to learn all parts of the country have adopted the principle that all children should be screened for hearing at about 8 months and again at the age of school entry. Regrettably, this policy has not yet been put into practice in all areas and I shall be considering what further action is necessary to achieve an improvement in the position in the light of our present consultations. Our evidence suggests that things have improved over recent years, but I believe my concern that screening practice should match agreed policy is shared by those


responsible for organising and delivering this service.
I have already referred briefly to the change-over programme for users of body-worn hearing aids wishing to try out the new behind-the-ear aid. The next step is to make a start in replacing the current models of body-worn aids, which are no longer representative of present-day technology. Work has already begun on a replacement for the more powerful range of these aids and we are planning to replace the three existing aids with a single model. This work load will be additional to the current programme and will represent a substantial commitment to be fitted in when hearing-aid centres are able to take it on. This improvement will benefit deaf people of all ages and is, of course, over and above the wide range of commercial hearing aids that are currently available to children under the National Health Service.
In addition to the provision of hearing aids and related hospital services, my advisory committee has also been looking at the role of social services in the care of the deaf. I hope to be able to make its report available in the very near future, but I can say now that it is apparent from the extensive inquiries the committee has made that social services for this group of handicapped people are patchy. Some areas have very good services, while others have none at all specifically for the deaf and hard of hearing. Here, too, there is an increasing awareness that much more needs to be done. The report does not recommend any startling changes, but seeks to adopt a commonsense approach to present-day problems by identifying the tasks to be tackled and those best equipped to tackle them. I believe that the report will provide valuable help to authorities seeking to improve the quality of their services at a time when the scarcity of resources makes it imperative that skilled manpower should be used only on the tasks which no one else is trained to perform.

Mr. David Mudd: As the Minister knows, one of my great problems in Cornwall involves the provision of adequate lip-reading tutors. The report to which he refers will contain a proviso that when economic conditions allow the whole subject of

tutors for lip-reading will be sympathetically examined to ensure tighter coverage in the remoter areas of the country.

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's deep personal interest in this matter. His point about lip-reading tuition is well taken. There will be extensive consultation on the findings of the report to which I referred. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will be fully taken into account.
With his sincere concern for deaf children, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Court Committee discussed in some detail services for the detection of handicap and for the provision of treatment and support to handicapped children generally and their parents. Its proposals included the establishment of district handicap teams who would be based on general hospital assessment units—which the committee proposed to rename child development centres. Such centres would, the committee proposed, have strong links with area audiology centres. We have been consulting widely on the committee's major proposals, including those for a district handicap team, and we shall, of course, take into account the points made by my hon. Friend. It will take some time to consider all the comments received, but we aim to make a statement as soon as possible.
I turn to the position in Nottinghamshire. The prevalence of profound, pre-lingual deafness in children generally is thought to be of the order of 1·5 per thousand live births. Less severe degrees of impairment occur more frequently, but no exact figures are available. Nottinghamshire has a total population approaching one million and in 1975 there were nearly 12,000 live births. Thus, the number of children born with a profound hearing loss can be expected to be of the order of 20 each year. The health authority has adopted a policy of total screening by suitably trained health visitors. A further test for hearing takes place between the ages of five and seven years. On diagnosis of a hearing loss the child is referred to a medical officer or general practitioner who, where appropriate, arranges for him or her to be seen by an ear, nose and throat consultant.
As I said earlier, there is often a difference between policy and performance, but I am advised that all the


health visitors who carry out screening tests in the county have now received specialist training and that it is proposed to hold training courses twice a year for new entrants to the service. These measures should make a significant contribution to bridging any gap that exists between precept and practice.
An important and developing function of the district general hospital is the provision of comprehensive assessment services for handicapped children of all ages up to 16 years and with all types of handicapping conditions. My Department gave guidance to authorities on the establishment of such centres in 1971, following advice from the Sheldon Committee, and in the Consultative Document on priorities we draw attention to the need to develop assessment services in areas where they are not at present available.
The aim of the sevice is to facilitate the multi-disciplinary assessment of the handicapped child and to reassess him or her at appropriate intervals in the light of the effect of treatment, education, training and environment, so that appropriate support can be given to the child and the family. Such facilities might form part of the service of the children's outpatient department and we have reminded authorities of the need to provide suitable accommodation for audiology.
I understand that the main comprehensive assessment service in Nottingham is based on the City Hospital and that it has the appropriate facilities and staff available for diagnosis and investigation of handicapped children. The regional health authority's strategic plan includes as one of its priorities the provision of paediatric assessment services in all areas in the region.
At present, following diognosis, children in Nottinghamshire can be referred to the hearing assessment centre based at Ewing School for the Deaf, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, where a multi-disciplinary team meets two or three times a month. This unit is available to serve the whole of the county, although it is situated in the city itself, which is in the south of the county. I fully appreciate the travelling difficulties this can cause. I believe, however, that the relatively few children living in the north of the county travel to Sheffield.
Effective help for deaf people and their families demands close co-operation among health, education and social services. Only where a close working relationship exists among members of various disciplines will there be found the basis for a comprehensive service for deaf people of all ages.
Unfortunately, this need for multi-disciplinary co-operation is not always appreciated, with the result that there may be duplication of effort and an inefficient use of scarce resources. I do not doubt that those responsible for organising services in Nottinghamshire are aware that a combined approach is essential, but it is our experience generally that relatively little communication takes place between the medical and social services. This is greatly to be regretted, for it is of fundamental importance that the social implications of deafness should be recognised by those responsible for diagnosis and that a close relationship within the framework of a comprehensive assessment centre should be established by members of all the appropriate disciplines.
The ideal aim would be the establishment of a multi-disciplinary team in which medical, educational and social assessments all make a contribution to the overall decision regarding treatment, rehabilitation and educational placement.
It is evident from our inquiries that the health and personal social services in Nottinghamshire are very much concerned to bring about improvements in the local situation. Last year a report, which is at present confidential, was prepared by a working party set up by the community health councils in the county to look into hearing aid services. This, its first report, concerns services for children. I understand that, although no member of the area health authority or social services department was included among the members, there is a large measure of agreement and support by the health authority for its findings.
Some of the recommendations in the report have already been acted upon, notably those relating to the provision of hearing aids and earmoulds and I understand that, as a result, a considerable improvement in the situation has been achieved. I see the report as forming the basis for a continuing discussion between the area health authority, the


education authority, the community health council and social services. I understand that a further working party is now being set up to work out jointly the needs and priorities for hearing impairment generally, and I warmly support this approach.
The social services department also recently conducted a management review study on the needs of the deaf. The findings of this study are currently being discussed with the staff concerned. These reviews are generally indicative of a recognition that the needs of the deaf have for too long not received adequate attention or a fair share of resources.
The fact that the headquarters of the Institute of Hearing Research is located in the city of Nottingham will, I am sure, provide a source of encouragement to local services. Certainly, there can be little doubt that research carried out in Nottingham will have beneficial effects on all aspects of audiology.
I know that my hon. Friend takes some pride in the choice of Nottingham for the headquarters of this important new institute. I am glad that he referred so kindly, warmly and appreciatively to Dr. Mark Haggard as the director of this new institute.
Finally, I should like to say something about the ability of Nottinghamshire to improve the service 'provision generally. Although Nottinghamshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) will no doubt be keen to undertake any necessary improvements in its services for the hearing-impaired, my hon. Friend needs no reminding of the difficult financial situation that faces both Trent Regional Health Authority and the area health authority (teaching). As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health and Social Security explained to my hon. Friend on 25th May, when they discussed the health authorities' financial difficulties, at a time when some other Government and local authority services are being held to "nil growth", in spite of the economic difficulties facing the country, the Government have made it possible to sustain nationally a growth rate of about 1½ per cent. per annum in current expenditure in the National Health Service. Trent Region has been given nearly twice the national average this year—nearly 12 times the rate of

the least favoured region. This amounted to more than one-sixth of the total additional funds available. Nevertheless, a deputation from Trent RHA on 11th May left Ministers in no doubt of the financial problems facing the region in the next few years.
In parenthesis I should add that I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health and Social Security will again be seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North on 5th July to discuss health services in the Trent Region.
Allocations to areas are, of course, a matter for the RHA. I know that Nottinghamshire AHA(T) has recently made representations to the RHA about the difficulties facing it in the next few years in commissioning and opening various capital developments currently under construction, including phase 1 of the new University Hospital, the new ward block at the City Hospital, and the adult mental handicap unit at Highbury Hospital. These difficulties are already well known to my hon. Friend, and I am confident that he will take them into account when pressing, as he has every right to do, for improvement of the services which we have been discussing in this short, but welcome debate tonight.

POP CONCERTS

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for the two hours' notice of this Adjournment debate on safety and security at pop concerts.
I must first declare an interest. Behind what some might kindly call this "mature" exterior exists a rather fanatical pop fan—somebody to whom the humming of any two bars of a rock record made between 1956 and 1964 and four bars of a record made after 1964 will evoke instant recognition. I am still a frequenter of pop concerts. I am more likely to listen to Radio 1, Beacon Radio or BRMB than to more serious programmes.
I say this not to put myself forward as a contender for a pop version of "Desert Island Discs" but to show that I am not an old dodderer who is urging


an attack on pop concerts or pop fans. Quite the reverse. I do not want to deny fans access to pop concerts. I want them to be provided with facilities at concerts which will allow them to enjoy themselves far more and with a greater degree of feeling that they will emerge unscathed from their attendance.
I am disturbed at the inadequacy of facilities at many pop venues. I am not concerned only about pop concerts held in premises such as theatres or cinemas. I am talking about concerts held in exhibition halls or dance halls, in enclosed or partly-enclosed premises such as sports grounds, and concerts held in the open air at pop festivals lasting three days or more.
Pop music is obviously a major industry, and with the increasing cost of large groups more organisers are resorting to premises other than theatres in order to attract the public. Facilities at such concerts vary considerably, and in many cases they are inadequate and dangerous. The situation is most serious outside London where the powers available to local authorities are weak.
There is no specific law on this subject. The law that exists that may be relevant is a rather curious ad hoc mixture including the law of nuisance and the use of injunctions. In London there is the London Government Act, which gives the Greater London Council much power. The rest of the relevant legislation is concerned with public health, but that is not really designed to control such pop concerts, and I hope that the Stedman Committee which is now investigating the matter will report soon. Perhaps some of my comments will be of relevance.
There are dangers inherent in the system of managing and organising pop concerts. I have a constituent, Mr. Raymond Dyke, who has participated in the security of about 1,000 pop concerts, and therefore he speaks with considerable authority. I shall forward his letter to the Minister and to the Stedman Committee. From my investigations and discussions with pop fans, I have ascertained that in the Midlands recently the extension to the stage collapsed, throwing large speakers on to the audience, injuring some of them and throwing some artistes into the audience. The fact that the group were punk rockers should not affect one's

judgment about what happened to them. I have heard that in another theatre the scaffolding and barrier separating the audience from the stage collapsed under pressure, because it was totally inadequate.
I have personally seen, at the rear of a theatre where a pop concert was taking place, blocked fire hydrants, empty water buckets and empty sand buckets. One must remember the enormous amount of electrical equipment that there is on stage at such concerts, so that water is no use and the sand buckets would have been inadequate even if they were full. They would have been a potential danger. The impedimenta on stage would have completely blocked the lowering of the safety curtain. That was at a concert in an excellent theatre. If we cannot have proper standards at such a place, what chance have we of good standards in institutions that are not designed for pop concerts?
We are talking not about theatre or cinema-goers who sit down and are generally well behaved but about existing premises being used for pop concerts at which pop fans are not always riveted to to the seats. Many push forward, particularly if a pop group such as Queen, the Rolling Stones or the Bay City Rollers are performing. They put pressure on the barrier and cause considerable danger to themselves and others. If facilities in supposedly properly constituted theatres are not adequate, this is a cause for concern.
I am concerned not only about safety but about public health. I have been told that at a pop concert in the Midlands, attended by thousands of spectators, there were two toilets for the women. There were no toilets outside the perimeter of the premises. As large groups were queueing for hours, the local authority should take notice of this kind of situation.
Most of these concerts pass off without incident, but not all of them do so. A young girl was crushed to death at a White City concert, and this precipitated the GLC regulations that have put that council to the fore in the control of pop concerts. I hope that its code of practice will be adopted by all local authorities.
There can be considerable "aggro" at pop concerts. About £8,000 worth of


damage was done at a recent concert at the Rainbow Theatre in London, and after a famous—or, rather, infamous—concert at the Charlton Athletic Football Ground last year the Melody Maker wrote:
All around there were ferocious fist fights breaking out. Slugging combatants, incensed perhaps by a dig in the ribs, some spilt beer or a blocked view, lashed out and kicked".
The Record Mirror commented on the considerable overcrowding. The ground was licensed for 45,000 spectators, and the Record Mirror estimated that there were 20,000 more fans than had been initially anticipated. This led to a crush, overcrowding and fighting. A vast number of forged tickets were on sale, and there were probably as many people outside the ground with proper tickets as there were inside with forged tickets. There is a danger of some entrepreneurs deliberately producing too many tickets and trying to con local authorities about the number of people who will be attending the concerts.
I understand that as a result of the Charlton concert the football club was taken to court. This may act as a warning to football clubs, many of which are under considerable financial pressures, which may be seeking to increase their revenue in this way. The organiser may disappear to parts where he cannot be found and the football club will be liable to prosecution, although the fine on Charlton Athletic F.C. was derisory.
Some of the dangers and potential dangers have been exacerbated by the development of the phenomenon of punk rock which originated in the United States. I refer to another source of information that is not often quoted in the House. In an article last week, the Sunday People analysed punk rock. It may have overstated the case, but the paper said that the verdict of its investigators on the cult was:
 It is sick. It is dangerous. It is sinister. And their findings are a warning to every family. Our investigation has uncovered a creed which glorifies violence, filth, sadism and rebellion.
Unemployed young people or those with limited job prospects provide a fertile ground for the proponents of punk rock. As one who attended a number of concerts given in the late 'fifties by singers such as Eddie Cochrane and Gene Vincent, who could be regarded as fore-

runners of punk rock, perhaps I should not throw too many stones at youngsters who are doing the same sort of thing 20 years later.
There may be a danger of exaggeration, but I have been to a couple of punk rock concerts and seen how even quite respectable youngsters respond to this phenomenon. Despite the total opposition of the Press, a punk rock record by the Sex Pistols has shot to the top of the hit parade. Young people are listening to this new prenomenon and it is one about which we should be concerned.
What is to be done? I do not want to inhibit the development of pop concerts, and I should be appalled if any one made such an assessment of my remarks I urge all local authorities to look at the GLC code of practice to see whether it could be applied to their areas. I am informed that outside London the law is inadequate and that the police and fire services can act only in an advisory capacity. Their weapons are limited to powers of persuasion and are not as strong as they would wish. I hope that the Stedman Committee will report fairly quickly and that the Government will act speedily.
I should like to refer in some detail to the Code of Practice for Pop Concerts produced last year by the GLC. It was called "A guide to safety, health and welfare at one day events". I agree with the GLC's finding that such events must be properly stage-managed and regulated, not only in the interests of those who attend but in the interests of nearby residents. One must bear in mind the needs of people who live near concert sites.
It is important that these concerts should be well conducted and do not fall below certain minimum standards. The code echoes the words of Mr. Dyke in calling for certain principles to be upheld. The code and Mr. Dyke say that there should be adequate access for emergency services and adequate public transport and security provisions. The number of security officers—or perhaps "attendants" is a better word—at many concerts is few. If there are difficulties in the crowd, as there were at the Charlton concert, the existing provision for security officers or attendants is totally inadequate.
As the GLC suggests, there should be a minimum number of competent attendants. The GLC says that there should be one attendant for each 100 people at an open-air concert and one to every 250 at an inside venue with seats.
The GLC also indicates that such attendants should not be belligerently dressed, as policemen or security officers but should wear casual clothes such as fluorescent jackets or T-shirts and should be recognised as attendants. They should not resemble the heavies who knock hell out of anyone who steps out of line but should be properly briefed and know how to handle a potentially dangerous situation. There should be adequate communication between them. The GLC says that this is a prerequisite for any successful concert.
The code also says that there should be adequate barriers and regulations relating to the way in which they are constructed. There should also be adequate provision for first aid. Much depends today upon the Willingness of members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade to turn out in all weathers and on all occasions. However, they do not always turn up. I believe that at large concerts there should be a doctor, a State registered nurse and members of St. John because their services can be called upon at any time. I urge that proposal upon the Minister because I have attended concerts where no first aid was available.
The code recommends that there should be proper sanitary provision. I have referred to a concert in the Midlands where there were totally inadequate facilities. When between 10,000 and 80,000 people attend a concert, even the toilet facilities at a football ground are inadequate because concerts last nine or 10 hours and not just one and a half hours of a football game. It is expensive to hire mobile toilet facilities, but the GLC specifies the number of toilets that should be provided per person. In my view, this is imperative.
The GLC also says:
Noise levels should … be controlled in order to (a) minimise the risk of hearing damage to the audience, performers and staff and (b) to reduce as far as reasonably possible any annoyance to occupiers living close to the premises.

Noise to one person is music to another. Who are we to say that a group should not be too noisy?
However, I should like to refer to a survey conducted by academics from Aston University at a recent concert at the Civic Hall, Wolverhampton, where a group—as they come from the Black Country I in no way criticise them—namely Slade, gave a concert during which the decibel reading in some parts of the theatre was 110 to 120. If noise levels reach 80 decibels in a factory, the work force would insist that they should clear off. Even three hours of 110 decibels can be injurious. That is something that obviously must be borne in mind.
I shall not go on at any more length about the report. It obviously indicates the number of gangways required, and it says that everyone should be seated at the performances. I hope that this superb report will be widely distributed and its principles implemented elsewhere.
In opposition to what I am urging, some might say "You are getting on a bit. You cannot really understand what youngsters want to do." They may say that people who attend pop concerts do not want to be regimented. I am not urging regimentation. What I want is to see proper health and safety standards in order to allow these people to enjoy their concerts.
We are told that this would be costly to organisers. Improved safety will be costly. If they want to organise a concert for 50,000 people, or in some cases more—at an Elton John concert at Wembley recently it was supposed that 70,000 people were there; I suspect that there were more than that—they must pay the price for organising a concert in this country and they must provide adequate facilities.
These are minimum standards which must be maintained. But "maintained" is the wrong word, because they simply do not exist. They are minimum standards that must be created.
We are talking about basic human rights at a pop concert. We are talking about the basic human right to receive medical attention if injured, the basic human right to relieve oneself in a proper and private place if the occasion arises, the basic human right to know that if one is going to a concert one will not be


in the middle of violence that will obviously be physically injurious, and, of course, the rights of neighbours, people living around potential theatres.
What the spectators must be allowed to do is to enjoy these concerts, but if they are to be sitting there for nine hours with inadequate facilities they can be come quite frustrated, especially if they cannot hear the music, as at Charlton, when people started standing in front of others. The people behind them could not see. Bottles and cans were thrown, not always accurately, and some of the people sitting were struck. If facilities do not exist, there will be greater frustration, and this may lead to some form of aggravation.
I would hope that artists who appeared would not provoke violence. There was a quotation from a punk rocker, Gary Holton, of the Heavy Metal Kids, who said:
Bands don't incite violence. I think they control it.
This is highly questionnable to my mind. The Heavy Metal Kids on one occasion recently, I am informed, spat at the audience. The audience spat back. God help the attendants in between.
There are some groups who would deliberately provoke not only hysteria but violence. Thankfully, they are in a minority. I would hope that all groups would exercise a degree of responsibility, but here is a dilemma. To develop some degree of rapport with their audiences, they whip them up to a frenzy. This may be entertainment, but it has overtones of danger.
With the "new wave" of music, as it is euphemistically called, we have people who can deliberately provoke violence. That is something that I would deplore. Some groups set a good example. If there is rioting down below, they stop playing. That may get people back to their seats, although some may say that it might provoke a greater riot.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to a letter written by Mr. Dyke, whom I met last week. He has said that he has been at a thousand concerts, ranging from small ones of 200 to a concert of over 50,000. He asks that there should be safety attendants, one per 100 of the

audience, and says that this would not be unreasonable. He says:
First aid should be available at all concerts in proportion to the size of the audience.
He says:
At live pop concerts a … proportion of safety attendants should be trained in basic fire fighting,
because in closed theatres there is a danger with all the equipment, and it is a considerable danger. He persuasively argues that
There is a growing tendency to use pyrotechnics (flashes) on stage, and if the audience come forward out of their seats as most do now, they are in real danger, as the flashes are normally placed on the front edge of the stage.
He says that all audiences should be compelled to remain seated during a performance, and, further, that there must be adequate toilet facilities. In conclusion, Mr. Dyke states:
Due to the above reasons, I shall very shortly finish with my part-time job as security chief at pop concerts, as I feel that I cannot be a party to the growing violence and lack of responsibility shown by managements and promoters, and total disregard to the very inadequate existing statutory legislation governing this type of entertainment.
Surely Mr. Dyke's great experience should be taken into account by the Stedman Committee.
I very much hope to see more pop concerts. I should be prepared to sit out in the open, although not for three days. I am prepared to sit out in the open or to go to a theatre. I very much enjoy going to pop concerts. I was to be seen outside the Rainbow three months ago in my teddy boy outfit—well, not quite—before watching Jerry Lee Lewis. I am a pop fanatic and I want to see more pop concerts, but let us have better organised pop concerts and a framework of legislation that will allow youngsters to enjoy their concerts with a certain degree of safety. That is what I urge upon the Under-Secretary of State and upon anyone concerned with this phenomenon.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to intervene briefly in someone else's Adjournment debate. I recognise and respect what the hon. Member for Walsall. South (Mr. George) has said. The


hon. Gentleman is not seeking to curtail anyone's enjoyment. He is merely drawing attention to the holocaust of death and destruction that could so easily overwhelm any one pop concert already scheduled to take place in Britain. No one may sit back complacently and assume that somehow certain safety standards will be introduced and that over and above one or two scuffles that will make the newspapers there will be no lasting damage and no lessons to be learnt.
I was most impressed to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Eddie Cochrane as being one of the fathers of punk rock. I assumed that a forerunner of punk rock might have been the Kirchin Band, which used to appear at the Fountainbridge Palais, Edinburgh. If one did not queue up three hours before the ballroom opened, there was no chance of admission. The Kirchin Band had the basic rhythm that the young people wanted. It had the ability to bring them literally to the peak of frenzy. However, through the sheer professionalism of Basil and Ivor Kirchin the band knew the point at which it would cause risk or would disappoint the young people. It would drop the tempo and avoid that peak.
That is the greatest criticism of the majority of modern pop groups. It seems that they do not have the ability to differentiate in the critical balance of lightness and darkness and activity and inactivity that is so necessary in crowd control.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's fears, especially about the dangers of pop concerts in theatres. There is now an increasing tendency for young people to move forward towards the stage. That results in a packed mass in front of the stage. The very presence of that mass in that area effectively cuts off some of the exits that would be necessary in the case of an emergency.
I am delighted to have heard the hon. Gentleman make his constructive observations. I am sure that his views will be shared by the Government. I hope that we shall have a reassuring reply.

9.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member

for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on seizing this opportunity for a debate. I do not say that I thank him for it, as the Environment Minister who happened to be around, but I congratulate him on his initiative and interest.
My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the variations of legislation in different areas. He set out the problems and provided many answers in his advice to local authorities, promoters and groups. Some of the law and order aspects are matters for the Home Secretary, but I will consult him so that he can discuss this problem with the authorities concerned.
My noble Friend Lady Stedman is at present chairing a committee which is examining the problem of pop concerts. A working party under the chairmanship of Lord Melchett produced a report on the free festivals which were a great worry a few years ago. Its report said:
We agree … that pop festivals—whether commercial or free—are a reasonable and acceptable form of recreation.
The working party hoped that its report would contribute to more informed public discussion about free festivals. It went on to say:
When properly organised, free festivals can be held with little expenditure being incurred by local and other statutory authorities, and without undue disturbance to the area in which they are held.
The report showed that it was possible for festivals which were causing so much worry to be well organised. In one case, the Government spent money on a site so that it could be shown that a pop festival over several days would not create great disturbance.
Some local authorities—like the Isle of Wight, which first felt the impact of pop festivals, and the GLC—have Local Acts to cover the problem. Local authorities can use powers under the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act of 1890 to regulate places of music and dancing and like places, but that is unlikely to include football grounds.
The answer does not lie entirely in legislation. The House rejected the Night Assemblies Bill which tried to do something about this problem because people assembling to listen to music could not be separated from those assembling for other reasons. There were civil rights problems and so on.
One of the problems with punk rock, as with the groups of the early 'sixties, is that the whole idea is to be against the Establishment and the adult population. Now that the earlier groups have themselves become a well-paid part of the Establishment, there is a natural revolt against them.
But there is something rather more frightening. My hon. Friend quoted the Sunday People, but it is not only the popular papers which have been giving attention to this problem. The Economist said:
The fans describe themselves as the 'blank generation', 'hate' and 'destroy' slogans are frequently used, the lyrics of the better groups, such as the Clash, who have dubbed themselves the 'Sound of the Westway'"—
with my former responsibilities for transport, I know what is meant by that—
(after a London motorway built literally over the top of working-class housing developments) refer to urban decay, unemployment among the young and life in high-rise blocks. Mr. Mick Jones, of the Clash, once claimed that he had never lived below the 17th floor, though his fellow guitarist Mr. Joe Strummer went to a public school.
The Economist says:
The new wave is unlikely to produce a new Mozart. But if it causes Mr. Callaghan, Mrs. Thatcher and the rest"—
presumably that means the rest of us—
to wonder why Britain's young people go around with safety-pins in their noses it may serve a useful purpose.
So that is part of a much larger problem. It applies not only to pop music but to football, and my Department has done a great deal of investigation and work on that.
I was asked about the question of legislation. Some football grounds are covered by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. In the main, these are the big grounds where the huge crowds gather. I do not think that that applies to Walsall football ground, which at the moment is not included in the provisions of the Act.
My hon. Friend suggests the need for promoters to ensure that there are adequate first-aid and toilet facilities and to make sure that there is no overcrowding particularly where, even with a normal crowd, the people tend to congregate in only one part of the theatre or the ground.
My Department is certainly not against pop concerts or festivals. We have played a part in making sure that they can be well organised and in showing that this can be done. We have spent money on providing an adequate site. My hon. Friend referred to the adequate provision of toilets. We do not have a great deal of control over local authorities in this respect. The other week I thought that I might get the Department to lean on some local authorities which were closing public toilets as an economy measure, but I discovered that this is entirely a matter for the authorities and it is something they can do if they wish.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's point about the report from Aston University, because this afternoon I chaired the Noise Advisory Council. We have a working party considering the effect on people who stay for long hours in discotheques. My hon. Friend mentioned 110 decibels. This afternoon the council has been considering the question of Concorde, and 110 decibels is the point at which Concorde could run into trouble.

Mr. George: With Concorde, surely the speed of the aircraft is so great that it would be gone in a matter of seconds. However, with a group with enormous amplification the exposure could last for three or four hours.

Mr. Marks: That is true. There is a worry about young people—and old people, too, for that matter—particularly about those who work in discotheques and the considerable noise they have to endure. The experts tell me that after a short time one regains one's balance shortly after leaving the place, but there is a worry about people who are continually subject to this very great noise.
I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend more information at such short notice. I assure him, however, that I shall put the points he has made to the Home Secretary and that Lady Stedman and her committee will be extremely interested in what he has said. I am sure that if he passes the correspondence he has had from Mr. Dyke, who has this great experience of acting as a security officer—I think that may be the wrong word, and perhaps we should think in terms of attendants and helpers—to the committee, the committee will welcome it.

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I am grateful to the Minister for making himself readily available at short notice to deal with the subject of facilities for treating arthritis and rheumatism in the West of Scotland, although I do not intend to confine myself to that area. As he knows I have a considerable constituency and general interest in this matter, not least because the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at Baird Street lies within my constituency, although it serves a fairly wide part of the West of Scotland.
One of the problems in discussing the subject of rheumatism and arthritis is that it has the image of a music hall joke. It is not a dramatic condition in the way that cancer or leukaemia is. To that extent this public image does not help in obtaining action to improve the facilities available to those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from one or other of the many rheumatic complaints. It is certainly not amusing if one happens to suffer pain from one form of rheumatism or another, or if one is unfortunate enough to be severely crippled and bed-ridden.
This year, 1977, is World Rheumatism Year. It has become a fashion to have these designated years when we attach more importance to a particular topic, but the plain fact is that those who suffer from rheumatism and arthritis are not just concerned with the 365 days this year, because they really are suffering from a long-term condition.
The Arthritis and Rheumatism Council has just published its third report entitled "A Walking Miracle". As the Minister will no doubt know, this deals with the long waiting periods for those who are seeking to have surgery for the replacement of joints. It is a particular problem in many parts of the country, and not least in the West of Scotland, that there are long waiting lists for people seeking admission to hospital for treatment. I suspect that we shall never have sufficient facilities to cope with the rising trend of demand.
If we think in terms of the proportion of the population over 60 and how it is likely to grow over the next five or

10 years, it is obvious that there will be increasing demands for joint surgery and the replacement of joints. As the Minister will recognise, this problem is not confined to the elderly, because a good many people of working age or young people unhappily sometimes require joint replacements, whether it is a knee joint, fingers, or hips.
In dealing with this growth industry, will the Minister say how he thinks the National Health Service might cope with the domestic demand, and whether the Service has looked at the possibilities in bio-engineering and even at the export potential of the manufacture of joint replacements to raise additional resources for home demand?
I turn in particular to the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at Baird Street. I am sure that the Minister must be aware of the uncertainty that has existed for some time among staff and patients about the future of this centre which, as we understand, is in time to be absorbed into the new Glasgow Royal Infirmary. That still leaves a good deal of anxiety among staff and patients about the precise timing and the actual arrangements for these changes in the next few years.
Here we have a centre that was opened in 1965 and that each year has about 12,000 outpatients who benefit from the centre's facilities.
The centre is supported by the Greater Glasgow Health Board but also receives some financial assistance from the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council, and indeed from time to time some outside professional assistance which the present director has been able to attract to the centre from a teaching point of view.
A number of reports have recently indicated that the incidence of arthritis and rheumatism complaints in the West of Scotland is more serious than in many other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that in Merseyside, for example, the incidence is also particularly bad. Yet we have about three consultant rheumatologists practising in the West of Scotland. As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken up this matter with him both in correspondence and in Questions. The last reply I received indicated that his Department was operating a target programme whereby there would be an increase within the next year or two in


the number of consultants or registrars devoting their full-time professional attention to this problem area.
It may be that the climate in the West of Scotland is one of the factors in creating such a high incidence of trouble, although some evidence suggests that this may affect only the pain thresholds of those suffering from various forms of arthritis. Some medical authors take the view that dietary factors are involved in certain types of arthritis. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any information on this matter. However, he will be aware that we in the West of Scotland like our cakes, scones and potato crisps. According to some medical authors, a diet with a high concentration of carbohydrates does not exactly help certain arthritic conditions. The soft water in the West of Scotland gets blamed for certain heart troubles. I do not know whether any research has been done on the correlation with arthritis.
I know what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is hoping to say a few words. He will no doubt be dealing more particularly with the problem in England. However, it is heartening to see the amount of research that seems to be going on in some of the centres in London, because no matter where the research is conducted the chances are that the benefits will extend over the country as a whole.
I gather that a team at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology in London has made something of a breakthrough. That kind of work ought to be fully supported by the DHSS. I was particularly sad, however, to read earlier this year that those involved in research in St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London were having difficult in guaranteeing the hiring or purchasing of an analytical machine to help them in their work. I know that my hon. Friend does not have ministerial responsibility for hospitals in London, but I just make that point.
More especially, I would raise with my hon. Friend the interest within the medical profession generally in rheumatic and arthritic problems. One sometimes has the impression that professionals take an interest in certain subjects which are of great interest to them but not of great concern to the general public. Has the Department taken any steps to encourage

the medical profession to give more time and attention to the problems of arthritis and rheumatism in student medical courses and in subsequent in-service courses for GPs? Much of the time of general practitioners is taken up with the problems of people suffering from those ailments.
How much interdepartmental activity is taking place on this broad subject? A total of 44 million days are lost to industry because people are away from work suffering from some form of arthritis or rheumatism. The figures show that in production terms about £400 million is lost to British industry each year due to this cause. The Treasury and more especially the Department of Employment should be taking a keen interest in the savings to industry that might accrue from more research and improved outpatient and in-patient facilities within the National Health Service.
This problem is not confined to the elderly but affects many working men and women. We know that there are pressures on public finance, but is there any possibility that more industrialists can be persuaded to take a special interest in sponsoring research and in seeking improvements to facilities to be afforded to working people who suffer from various forms of arthritis?
I know from my experience with the Scottish TUC in the mid-1960s, where I had special responsibilities for the social services, that trade unions attach a great deal of importance to the problem. This is not necessarily backed by hard cash, but many unions recognise the need to improve facilities. While I was working for the Scottish TUC, Dr. Watson Buchanan, the present director of the Baird Street Clinic, took up his post. I organised a meeting at the headquarters of the STUC when Dr. Buchanan addressed members of the General Council on this problem. He tried to persuade trade union leaders to take a greater interest in the subject. In the past decade Dr. Buchanan and others in this field have dedicated themselves to improving the lot of arthritis sufferers.
I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance on three specific matters. The first is that he will make a statement to allay the fears of the staff at the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, who are very worried about their future and the


patients who attend the centre who are becoming increasingly anxious about their continued treatment.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will have discussions with his colleagues at the DHSS about the lack of priority attached to this problem of rheumatism and arthritis. The White Paper "The Way Ahead", published last April, did not really give any indication that rheumatism and arthritis loomed very large in the Health Service's priorities in Scotland. This may reflect the attitudes within the medical profession, and I hope that the Minister will follow up with the profession in Scotland the whole area of medical education and indicate to the area health boards—particularly the Greater Glasgow Area Health Board—that he will give full support to the efforts being made in this field. I hope, too, that he will look at the research being done in Scotland at present and will give whatever encouragement he can to those who are making a breakthrough in this area.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister's Department will look at some of the factors that seem to create, or at least lead to, a greater incidence of the complaints of rheumatism and arthritis in the West of Scotland. There are people in Florida, which is not exactly the coldest place in the world, who suffer from certain rheumatic and arthritic complaints. However, the problem in the West of Scotland seems to warrant special attention.
This has been an unexpected opportunity to debate this matter and if the Minister, who made himself available at relatively short notice, will give an assurance that he and his officials will bring fresh impetus to this problem, the debate will have been well worth while.

9.38 p.m.

Sir George Young: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on selecting this most important subject for debate tonight. If more of his hon. Friends and more of mine had known that the debate was to be held, I am sure they would have wished to join in, because this is a very important matter.
This is World Rheumatism Year and this week a concerted attempt is being made by the bodies involved to draw attention to the particular problems of

those who suffer from rheumatism and arthritis. It is right that we should spend some time debating the matter in this House.
Earlier today we heard the most welcome statement about vaccine-damaged children. That is a worthy cause deserving our sympathy and attention. But let us not forget the less dramatic but equally painful disease that affects far more of our people and for which there is no known cure.
Some 700,000 women and 200,000 men suffer from rheumatoid arthritis—the most common crippling disease in this country. In addition, some 5 million people suffer from osteo-arthritis, a disease which usually affects the elderly. We spend some £2·5 million annually relieving the pain that is caused by arthritis, which will disable roughly 10 per cent of us. It is estimated that six children out of every 10,000 will suffer from some form of swelling in the joints and from the pain which that causes.
Each week the average general practitioner will see two new patients suffering from arthritis. A quarter of the over-45s who visit their GPs do so because they suffer from this disease. It is a widespread disease which afflicts a large number of people.
I suspect that our response to this disease is totally inadequate. At the moment only 4½ per cent. of our National Health Service resources are devoted to tackling this illness. There are only 150 full-time rheumatologists in the whole country. Our hospitals are poorly equipped to deal with this illness, and services are threatened by public expenditure cuts.
There is a long waiting list for hip replacement, which is an expensive operation. It costs the NHS about £1,000 per operation. It is doubtful whether we can continue to treat this disease in this dramatic way when the cost is so high. The injection of steroids has been tried, but they produce particular side effects and were no long-term solution to the problem.
There is an active branch of the British Rheumatism and Arthritis Association in my constituency which does what it can to try to relieve the pain, and it campaigns very effectively for services. It is


a warning sign to all of us that a voluntry organisation such as that should have so many members, because that indicates that there is a gap in statutory services. I should like to outline briefly some points the answers to which would I think minimise the problem.
First—this reinforces something said by the hon. Member for Maryhill—we must find out why some people are more vulnerable to this disease than others. We must discover what environmental or hereditary factors may be at work that make people susceptible to this illness.
Secondly, what is it that happens to joints? We need a better understanding of the illness if we are to try to get effective solutions.
Thirdly, the search for new drugs to relieve the pain and inflammation must be stepped up. We need drugs with minimum adverse side effects. Perhaps the Medical Research Council has a rôle to play here since it currently spends only £1¼ million on research into this disease, which compares unfavourably with its budget for research into other illnesses.
Fourthly, we need more mechanical aids to help those who are severely afflicted. There is some concern that the current cuts in services will hit those most severely afflicted by this illness. It would help if we could exempt expenditure on research and other facilities for the relief of arthritis from Health Service cuts. It is one of the Cinderella services in the NHS and it should be exempt from any retrenchments.
I end on a positive note. I am convinced that a cure for arthritis can be found if we are prepared to devote the resources to it. However, it means a shift in priorities. If this debate has contributed to that shift, it will have been well worth while.

9.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for his indication that he intended to raise this matter on the Adjournment should time allow. In all fairness to him, I should say that he gave me ample warning. I am grateful for the courteous manner in which he approached me. I know that my hon. Friend, in conjunction with my right

hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), has been deeply concerned about rheumatic diseases in the West of Scotland with particular relevance to the Baird Street clinic in Glasgow.
Before dealing with the points made by my hon. Friend I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who made a very good and relevant contribution. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need to protect the treatment of rheumatism and arthritis from cuts in public expenditure as they affect the National Health Service. I have no responsibility for the Health Service in England and Wales, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, when speaking at the launching ceremony of World Rheumatism Year, gave the assurances that the hon. Gentleman was seeking.
It is worthy of note that the Secretary of State took the trouble to go to the launching ceremony of the World Rheumatism Year to express his concern and recognition of the problem that affects those who suffer from rheumatism and arthritis. We all recognise the problems that such people suffer.
I now turn to the Baird Street clinic. The things that brought the clinic to the attention of people in the West of Scotland was that it was decided last year, because of the Glasgow Fair Fortnight—the traditional two weeks when people in the West of Scotland have their annual holidays—and the rather reduced use of the resources of the clinic that the clinic should be closed for that fortnight and that in-patients should be transferred to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. It was that, not the nature of the disease, but the fact that the clinic had been closed for a fortnight, that was the single factor that brought to the attention of the people of the West of Scotland the fact that so many people suffer from this unfortunate disease of rheumatism and arthritis.
Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill rightly took up the matter of the closure of the Baird Street clinic. We assured him of the assurances that we had received from the Greater Glasgow Health Board that the fortnight's closure had taken place against the background of the holiday period and the greatly reduced use of the resources. We told my


hon. Friend of the assurance that we had been given that there was no question of any degree of permanence about the closure. However, my hon. Friend asked me towards the end of his speech to give him some assurance about the future of the clinic. This is a matter for the Greater Glasgow Health Board, but it is an open secret that the possibility is that the clinic will indeed be transferred to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
The allocation of consultancies, consultant specialities and the actual number of consultants in each specialty are also matters for health boards. In this case, it is the Greater Glasgow Health Board. The Secretary of State does not lay down any hard and fast rules to the boards about how many consultants they should have in each specialty. That is left for the boards to decide against the background of the conditions prevailing in their particular areas.

Mr. Craigen: I recognise that the Scottish Office will not lay down hard and fast ratios to the boards, but since the problem seems to be more prevalent in the West of Scotland than it is anywhere else, will the Scottish Office give a little more attention to the situation that appears to exist there? I do not ask the Scottish Office to lay down hard and fast ratios but simply to say that it would like to see more consultants made available to the patients in the West of Scotland and that it will do something about it. I am not looking for more researchers but for more people who will put their professional skills to the assistance of the poor sufferers.

Mr. Ewing: The need for consultants is a matter for the health boards. It is absolutely true that if any health board thinks about increasing the number of consultants in its area, it must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State, but in the first instance it is a matter for the board to consider. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill says about the higher incidence of the disease—I was about to say the high incidence, but that would not be strictly accurate—of rheumatism and arthritis in the West of Scotland than in other parts of Scotland.
I was interested in the quotation that my hon. Friend gave from an American

magazine suggesting that this incidence might be related to diet and water in the West of Scotland rather than to the factors that have hitherto been thought responsible for the higher incidence of rheumatism and arthritis. If a certain amount of rheumatism and arthritis is caused by what people eat and the fact that they drink too much water—as the article implies—we must exercise even greater caution on the preventive aspects and consider what we eat and how much water we drink. It is an interesting theory that has not been properly examined in the West of Scotland. It is worth examining to see whether there is something that can reduce the higher level of arthritis and rheumatism in the West of Scotland.
My hon. Friend referred to joint replacements. When such a new technique in surgery is developed, there is always a high demand for it in the early stages. One of our problems is dealing with that demand. The technique certainly brings relief for those suffering from rheumatism and arthritis and we hope that we shall be able to overtake the demand and cope with it.
My hon. Friend also referred to waiting lists and associated factors in the West of Scotland. There has been an increase in the number of out-patients, but this has been gradual rather than dramatic and I understand that the health board is capable of handling it.
Surgery on the hands of those suffering from rheumatism and arthritis is usually carried out in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and when it is necessary to use the facilities at the Baird Street clinic staff have to be transferred from the infirmary to staff the theatre at the clinic. No doubt the health board will bear this in mind when considering the use of resources.

Mr. Craigen: I have written to my hon. Friend about our having facilities at the clinic that could not be used because of the lack of nursing staff. I had a subsequent meeting with the Greater Glasgow Health Board. Where facilities exist, every effort should be made to use them unless there is some contravention of health or safety requirements.

Mr. Ewing: I believe that the health board makes the maximum use of theatre facilities, certainly at the Royal Infirmary and the facilities for hand surgery on


people suffering from rheumatism and arthritis at the Gartnavel Hospital. There was some question about the operating theatre facilities at the clinic and the need to increase the limit of the costs involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the number of days lost to industry because of rheumatism and arthritis. The figures for Scotland show a welcome decrease in the number of days lost to industry because people suffer from rheumatism. In 1969 627,500 days were lost to industry from that cause. In 1975 the figure had dropped to 445,600 days. That is a substantial reduction in a period of about six years. We may take it that the reduction is due in no small part to the new forms of treatment and to early diagnosis of the disease, which makes it easier to treat and which gives a greater degree of success.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's comment that industry should pay more attention to the problems caused by rheumatism and arthritis. Last week I had an interesting meeting with a senior civil servant from Bavaria who is a doctor by profession. He had responsibility for industrial health in his country. He was responsible for the way in which industry in Bavaria conducted its health programme. I understand from him that the law in Bavaria demands that each industry—each factory and firm—must employ a doctor. He was most eloquent in his praise for the preventive aspect of that work and of the savings that it brought to industry in terms of days lost and to the State in terms of direct savings to the health services. It was an interesting conversation that set me thinking.
My hon. Friend gave me good and reasonable warning about the debate. I have sought to assure him about the future of the Baird Street clinic. Even if it does not remain as a clinic, the facilities will remain there although they will be contained within the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. The Baird Street clinic

is not the only centre for rheumatism. We have one in Edinburgh and another in Aberdeen. There is a close link between physicians and surgeons in all our district general hospitals. In that respect there is a continuous flow of treatment to patients.
My hon. Friend also asked me whether I would have discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security about the lack of priority attached to the treatment of arthritis. He mentioned the White Paper "The Way Ahead". That document applies not to the DHSS in England and Wales but to Scotland. "The Way Ahead" is a document that shifts the emphasis in the health services in Scotland from the short-stay acute situation to the long-stay situation in which we are most anxious to take care of geriatrics, psycho-geriatrics and mentally deficient patients, an area which, by and large, has been neglected.
I think that that neglect is to all out shame. No one can escape blame for that. By and large, it has been a neglected area down through the years, but no doubt in that situation health boards will certainly give the most serious consideration to the problems of rheumatism and arthritis.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Mr. Ewing: I was about to draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that if there are any points in my hon. Friend's speech that I have not answered, certainly we shall write to him about them. I conclude by again thanking him for taking the opportunity to raise this very important subject. It is certainly most important to those who suffer from rheumatism and arthritis.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.